Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8401
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8138
2-L&N-CM-' 80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Abraham Weiss when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 91, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)



Dispute: Claim 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.



Claimant was dismissed on June 30, 1977 on the grounds of excessive absenteeism and tardiness, after being in Carrier's employ for approximately 10 months. During the first seven months of his employment, Claimant was absent or tardy about 30 percent of his regularly assigned workdays.

Supervision had twice met with Claimant in the present of the Organization's Local Chairman and counseled Claimant on his attendance record, advising him of the necessity to improve his attendance. His immediate supervisor had also talked to him informally concerning his lateness and absences. Although Claimant
Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 8401

Docket No. 8138

2-T,&N-CM-' 80


promised to do better, his record showed little improvement; in the month following the second meeting with supervision he was absent or late on 11 days.

Although Claimant complained of back problems, a medical examination disclosed that he was physically able to perform his work. He admitted during the hearing that his attendance record was "deplorable".

Although Petitioner charged that Claimant had not received a fair and impartial hearing, we find on the basis of the record before us that such charge was not substantiated.

Claimant was warned on several occasions, formally and informally, to better his attendance record. The nwnber and frequency of his absences and tardiness during his relatively short period of employment with this Carrier indicate a flagrant disregard of the duty of regular attendance. He was given an opportunity to correct his ways, but he continued to be unreliable in reporting for work on time, much less report at all. The record clearly warranted the Carrier's terminating Claimant's service and dismissing him for excessive absenteeism and tardiness, and we will so rule.

AWARD

Claim denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RATMOAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By



Dated t Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of July, 1980.