/ . r
Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9777
 .SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9529
 2-SP-MA-'84


( International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Parties to Dispute: (
( Southern, Pacific Transportation Company
 (Western Lines)
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier improperly dismissed Machinist J. W. Telphy (hereinafter referred to as Claimant) from service on September 26, 1980.
2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to restore Claimant to service with seniority and service rights unimpaired, with compensation for all wage loss.
Findings:
The Second Division o f 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 employes within the meaning o f the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


The Claimant, Mr. J. W. Te.Zphy, entered the service of the Carrier on February 1, 1972. Mr. Telphy was employed as a machinist at the Carrier's West Colton, California Locomotive Maintenance Plant.
By letter dated September 8, 2980, Mr. Telphy was notified to report to a formal hearing to be held on September 23, 1980, concerning:
 Form 1 Award No. 9777
 Page 2 Docket No. 9529
 2-SP-MA-'84
 ° your alleged erratic attendance during the period
 of August 1, 1980 through September 7, 1980, when you
 allegedly absented yourself without authority six (6) times,
 absented yourself for personal business five (5) times,
 absented yourself account sickness three (3) times, and
 were tardy three (3) times. In connection with these
 absences you are charged with responsibility which may
 involve violation of the following quoted portion of
 Rule 810 of the General Rules and Regulations of the
 Southern Pacific Transportation Company:
 'Employes must report for duty at the prescribed
 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 from their
 employment without proper authority
Continued failure by employes to protect
 their employment shall be sufficient cause
 of dismissal.'"
The formal hearing was conducted as scheduled on September 23, 1980; and Mr. Telphy was subsequently notified by letter dated September 26, 1980, that he was dismissed from the Carrier's service for violation of Rule 810 of the Carrier's General Rules and Regulations.
The record shows that on July 31, 1980 Mr. Telphy contacted Assistant Plant: Manager W. S. Evert to inform him that he had returned from his leave of absence which had been granted after a bereavement leave from May 27 through May 29, 1980; and that Mr. Evert told Mr. Telphy that West Colton was short of forces, that his job no longer existed and that he should come to work on August 1st and place himself where his seniority would allow. However Mr. Telphy did not report for work until August 3, 1980. Mr. Telphy did not report to work on August 6, 1980. Thereafter according to Mr. Evert's testimony and the exhibits of record Mr. Telphy was:

Form 1 Award No. 9777
 Page 3 Docket No. 9529
 2-SP-MA-'84
The record also indicated that during the priod of time from August 1 through September ?, 1980 Mr. Telphy was late for duty on August 13 and 28, and that he left work early on August 29, 1980.
While the Organization contends that Mr. Telphy could not be considered absent from duty for August 1 and August 2, because he had not obtained a position through the exercise of his seniority, and while the record is clear that Mr. Evert personally instructed Mr. Telphy to report on the first of August, even if the August 1 and 2 dates were not considered, the evidence befbre this Board for the period between August 3 and September 7, 1980 makes clear beyond question that Mr. Telphy was in violation of Rule 810.
Once it is established that an employe is responsible for a violation of the Carrier's Rules, it is proper for the Carrier to review an individual 's personal record in reaching a determination on appropriate discipline. In the instant case Mr. 2e1phy's personal record o f past discipline was not exemplary.





                            By Order of Second Division

                4~1 1


ATTEST:
      GI~G~

      Nancy J./r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 1st day of February, 1984