Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMET1T BOARD Award No. 8171
SECOND DIVISION Docket :?o. 8027
2-cR-CM-'79





Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
(Consolidated Rail Corporation

Dispute: Clan of Employes:





Findings:

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 employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



The Claimant eras employed by the carrier at its Reading, Pennsylvania repair facility. His suspension by the carrier resulted from absenteeism and tardiness during the period of December 16, 1976 to March 7, 1977. The suspension was based upon a finding of a violation of Rule 22, which reads as follows:




Form 1 Award No. 8171.
Page 2 Docket No. 8027
2-CR-CM-'79
"shall notify his foreman as early as possible. When
known, employees are expected to make advance arrangements
if necessary to be absent."
"General Notice C
"The subjects treated in these rules are subdivided for
convenience. The rules apply equally to all personnel
and must b e observed wherever they relate in any way to the
proper discharge of the duties of any employee."

Claimant argues that the carrier has failed to meet its required burden of proof to show a violation of Rule 22. In this regard, the claimant notes that he submitted evidence that he was under doctor's care for six of the days of the time involved.

The record reflects that claimant was absent for eight days, and that he reported late for his assigned work on six days, and departed the job early on two days. The accurulative total of these incidents is 76 tiaurs and 38 minutes absence from work.

Further, the claimant failed to give any notice to the carrier of his absence on two of the days involved. Claimant failed to give any reason why there was no notice given.

Also, claimant gave no explanation for his absence on many of the incidents, except to state that they were for personal business. Such personal business involved both full days of absence and late arrivals.

Based upon the record which is noted above, it is clear that the claimant failed to meet the requirements of Rule 22. Claimant has an unsatisfactory attendance record for the time period referred to.

The disciplinary layoff issued to the claimant was reasonable under the circumstances.






                          By Order of Second Division


Attest; Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

,y

,---Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated a~ Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of November, 1979.