Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8555
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8346
 2 -L&N-F 0-' 81
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Gilbert H. Vernon when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers
 (
 Parties to Dispute:



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 aver the dispute involved herein.

At the time of dismissal, claimant was employed as a service attendant with a seniority date of August 3, 1977.

 On June 28, 1978, claimant was charged with being absent from duty without permission from a proper authority from June 11 through June 21, 1978, and with excessive absenteeism since January 1, 1378. The letter also detailed the dates that the claimant was late or absent. An investigation was set for July 10. As a result of the investigation, claimant was notified of his dismissal via letter dated July 20.

 The organization argues initially that the procedure was defective because the carrier held the hearing without the claimant present. They argued that the e?:-.':i1at misunderstood the hearing notice and came to the hearing at 9:00 a.m. instead of 8:00 a.m. Tt is their contention that although the hearing was concluded, ti;e hearing officer should have reconvened the hearing or rescheduled it for another date. We find no validity to this argument. The claimant should have been well aware of the time, place and date of the hearing. The June 28
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 8555
 Docket No. 8346
 2-L&N-FO-'81

 notice of investigation clearly indicated the hearing was at 8:00 a.m. The claimant had signed a receipt for this notice and the receipt was reproduced in the record. Further, there is nothing in the record that indicates his absence was due to factors beyond his control or that a postponement was requested by his representative at the hearing. It is well established that failure of a claimant to appear at an investigation authorizes the carrier to proceed without him and that such failure to appear is at the claimant's own peril.

 Regarding the merits, the record contains substantial evidence to support the charge. The claimant's foreman N. D. Parrish testified that claimant did not have permission to be absent between June 11 and June 21. He also testified that the letter of charge which detailed Mr. Ramsey's absences since January 1, 1978, was correct. Mr. Parrish testified that by his calculation the claimant was absent or tardy 28% of the time since January 1.

 Regarding the quantum of discipline, the Board recognizes its proper role. The Board should not substitute its judgment for the carrier's in regard to the appropriate penalty unless it can be shown the discipline is arbitrary, capricious or excessive. In reviewing the record, we do not see the claimant has received the benefit of any warnings or previous suspension. We believe the carrier should have at least warned the claimant some time prior to dismissal that his continued absences would result in severe disciplinary action. It is the Board's belief that permanent dismissal must be considered excessive for this type of offense when the carrier has failed to engage in any previous corrective action such as warnings or suspensions. A lengthy suspension would have been an appropriate penalty, therefore we will direct the reinstatement of the claimant with no back pay. We also direct that the claimant be made aware that this is an opportunity to correct his work habits which, at best, were deplorable. We urge him to take advantage of this chance to show himself responsive to disciplinary efforts and worthy of continued employment. He must realize the carrier has a right to expect regular attendance. A reoccurrence of his previous behavior will undoubtedly be considered unfortunate evidence that another chance, such as this, would not be appropriate.

 A W A R D
Discipline modified to the extent indicated in the findings.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary

BY __
 F~osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
 r