Form 1
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8407
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8178
 2-EJ&E-CM-180

 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Kay McMurray when award was rendered.

 System Federation No. 6, Railway Employes'

 Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

 Dispute: Claim of Em ployes
Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company

 1. That as a result of an investigation held on October 26, 1977 Carman






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 axe respectively carrier and employs within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

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

Claimant, Mr. Ronald Courtney, was notified by letter dated October 18, 1977, to report for a formal investigation on October 26, 1977, "to develop all facts and to determine your responsibility, if any, for allegedly being excessively absent during the period of September 28, 1977, through and including October 16, 1977, in that you failed to report for your work assignment on September 28, October 2, 9, 15 and 16, 1977."

 The hearing was held as scheduled and as a result the action herein carnplained of was taken by the Carrier on November 1, 1977.

and past practice. All parties were freely allowed to make statements, present witnesses, cross examine, and fully advance their viewpoints.
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 8407
 Docket No. 8178
 2-EJ&E-CM-'80

 The Organization raises an objection to the conduct of the hearing process;, claiming that the actions of the hearing officer indicated prejudgment of the case. The investigation record does not bear out such allegation and we find, considering the entire record, that claimant's rights were not jeopardized.

 The record reveals that claimant was in fact absent frown work on the dates charged. On ote of the days he called in to report off but gave no reason and on'one day he reported that he was having car trouble and would call back, but no call was received. In testimony Mr. Courtney reported that he was sick on one of the days and the others were attributed to car trouble. It would appear that minor automobile repairs or alternate transportation could have been found during this period of time. His excuses were somewhat less than credible.

 The record indicates that claimant was absent one third of the time during the period in question. The Carrier had a right to be concerned and certainly could not condone such a record in the absence of good reasons. Some form of disciplinary action was merited. While it is probably true that this offense standing alone would not justify the ultimate industrial relations penalty, it is appropriate to weigh Mr. Courtney's entire record to determine the reasonableness of the disciplinary action. In reviewing that record we find that claimant has been repeatedly warned and disciplined for similar offenses. He had been suspended for periods of ten and twenty days during the last year for such transgressions. In view of the entire record we are unable to determine that the Carrier's decision was arbitrary or capricious. The action taken is well within the Carrier's legal rights.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


i