Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 978;
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 947.2
 2-WT-CM-'84
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee James F. Scearce when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the
 Parties to Dispute: ( United States and Canada


Dispute: Claim of Employes:
The Washington Terminal Company improperly suspended Car Cleaner James Duckett ten..(ZO) days in violation of the Agreement, specifically Rules 18 and 29, after an investigation on November 14, 1980.
In compliance with the provisions of Rules 18 and 29 the Washington Terminal Company should be ordered to compensate Mr. Duckett for his net wage loss as well as for any other loss he may have been caused to suffer due to the W.T.Co.'s miscarriage of justice.
FINDINGS:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and ,a11 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 employed as a Car Cleaner at the Carrier's facility. This dispute arises out of discipline assessed to him on the charge o f absenteeism during the month of October, 1980, involving seven days absence. Initially, the Claimant was notified of the Carrier's Organization's intervention and disputation of the fact-situation apparently led to a conclusion that a ten-day suspension was warranted.
The Organization disputes the imposition of any discipline, contending that of the seven days o f absence cited, the Claimant was excused early on three such days for cause, one day was improperly charged and thus dropped, he was fifteen minutes late on another and absent with justification on the other two. The organization complains that after giving the Claimant permission to depart work early, the Carrier now endeavors to penalize him for such privilege. The Carrier contends that the Claimant's non-availability for work for the periods involved shows a disinterest on his part in his employment obligation and ineffective management o f his time. It also cites the Claimant's disciplinary record to buttress its actions here.
 Form 1 Award No. 9787
 Page 2 Docket No. 9471
 2-WT-CM-'84
While this Board can agree with the Carrier that the Claimant's attendance record during the time period involved is far from ideal, it concludes that it is incumbent upon it to be correct in its facts when setting out the basis for discipline. Here, as details were developed, the nature of the Claimant's nonavailability changed significantly. And while the Board can conclude that some discipline might be in order, we consider a ten-day suspension excessive; the Award is drawn accordingly.


While the Carrier demonstrated cause for discipline, the extent imposed was excessive. The discipline will be reduced to five days.

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest:
      6+1 N t.~. Liver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of February, 1984