Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8038
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7967
 2-SPr-CM-' 79



Parties to Da.s~zt e: ( (Carmen)
 (
 ( Southex'ox Pacific Transportation Compa:rr

 Dispute: Claim of F-naloy es:












F:indiz2 ;s
The Second Division of the: Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or ernployesinvolved in this dispute axe respectively car;^xer and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adju.3tnzent Board has jurisdiction over the dispute. involved herein.

Claimant was charged ~-,-J.th violating Rules 801 and 810 of the General Rules and Regulations of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. An investigative hearing was held an TTovexnber 10, 1977 wherein he was found guilty of the charges and ciisrrissed from service, effective 3:00 P.M., November 11, 1977.

 Claimant argues in defense that he worked and completed his assignment on October 10, 1977, while carrier contends that he failed to remain at his duty station between 2:00 P.M. and 3:30 P.M. and c1.aizned compensation for the time not worked.
 Foam l Award No. 8038
 Page 2 Docket No. 7967
 2-sPT-CM- t 79

 In reviewing this case, particularly the investigative transcript, we find no procedural irregularities that affect the integrity of this proceeding. Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial hearing.

 We do find, however, on the question of substantive merit that claimant violated Rule 810, which reads in pertinent part as follows: "Employees must report for duty at the prescri~c)ed time and place, remain at their post of duty and devote themselves exclusively to their duties during their tour of duty. They must not absent themselves Sri thout proper authority. Continued failure by employees to protect their employment shall be sufficient cause for dismissal."

 The record shows that cl«waant left the property at 3:30 P.24.. This was his normal quitting time. It does not substantiate his assertions that he was working i n an area between 2:00 P.M. and 3:30 P.M. that was not readily observable by others. There were not witnesses who actually saw him working then, nor any implied directive ind:i.cat9.n~; that he was assigned to such area. The supervisor could not find Yrun at that tarle, despite repeated attempts to locate him and his testimony does not .contradict this findir~,Y.

 We well nigh recognize the importance of appropriate attendance and reporting standards iit our industry and unpernitted. absences are inexcusable. But we feel that perm:-anent dismissal for hiding out, is somewhat excessive under the specific circumstances of this incident.

 We believe that a measured and remediative penalty should. be imposed and will consider the time sp~.nt frcan dismissal as sufficient punishment for this offense. Accordingly we will order that claimant be reinstated to his former position, but without back pay.






Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

                  c~-'~

                  .~


By ~~ ~ ~C` _
      semarie Brasch - Admin:!strative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of August, 1979.