Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 SECOND DIVISION

 Award No. 10396
 Docket No. 10328
 2-MP-MA-'85

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

 International Associatio

 nd Aerospace Workers

 Claim in behalf hours per day on his

 commencing Sepemher 2, would have been availa accredited vacation qu

 personal. leave days, plus six percent (6%) per annum interest, due to Carrier's violation of the controlling Agrepment. Claim is continuing.

 n of Machinists

 road Company

 of Machinist P. R. Wit regular assignment at

 198'?; for all overtime for which he
 hle, reinstatement of seniority with
 alification and compensation for

 t for eight (8)

 Finrlings:
The Second Division of th record and all the evidence, f

 The carrier or carriers in this dispute are respecti meaning of the Railway Labor

 This Division o the dispute involved

 Parties to said di hearing thereon.

Claimant Machinist Y. R. tJ Carrier at the Settegast Diesel worked the 7:0(> a.m. - 3:00 p.m 1982, the Carrier's master mech on August 31, 1982 for a formal charges:


service.

 e Adjustment Board, upon the whole finds that:

 and the employe or employes in vely carrier and employer withi Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 volved n the

 jurisdiction over

 spate waived right of appearance at

 itt was regularly employed by the ;hop, Houston, Texas, where he

 . shift. Under date of August 23,

 anic notified Claimant to report investigation of the following

 "to develop the facts if any, in connection proper Ly protect your

 1`182, on the 7:Of)AM to 3:()t)YNI Shift, by arriving late at N:0()A"t and a review of your personal, absentee and other records of employment."

 and place the responsibility, with your alleged failure to assignment Friday, August 20,

1982, Claimant was dismissed from Carrie
 Award No. 10396
 Docket No. 10328
 2-MP-MA-'R5

 The Organization argues that Claimant's discharge w

 result of an unfair and consideration of Ciaiman further contends that Cl coupled with improvement

 Board to find that the d on reasnahle. Krrl.e 17 of

 s the

 i

 partial investigation due to t's prior record. The Organization aimant's thirteen (13) years of service s in his attendance record compel this scipline of discharge was unjust and the controlling agreement provides:

By Claimant's own admission at the invetigation, he was late

 ck broke

 imant was t he

 to report on August 20, 1982, allegedly because his tru down on the way to work. The evidence reveals that Cla absent, in-late or out-early for 1980, 1981 and 1982 in following totals:

 1982 11
 (Through August 20, 1982)

 While a substantial number of Claim to his reporting off sick, a number of i absences where Claimant neither appeared to the Carrier. However, whether or not

 illnesses as in either report in-

 his record showing

 nt's absences were due stances involved at work, or reported off Claimant had legitimate

 9PO, the fact remains that he continued to late or out-early in 1981 and 1982. Rather th

 g an improvement, Claimant was proceeding

 the year 1c3R2 at a pace which was higher than that of 79ts1.

 Claimant's absences for 1981 wer

 consideration of his sick days,

 2(?, 1982 at a rate which absences for 1981.

 e adjusted downward in

 Claimant was absent as o

 i f continued LJOIl1Ci have Pxceede

 Claimant's admitte cannot be ,judged for th with his prior record out-earlvs and absence the notice and investig itself, but tlI e ultimat charge he assessed aga prior record to the ext were somewhat reduced.

 that the Carrier used his to the offense charged.

 f August d his net

 offense which appears minor on its face, purposes of punishment out of context E a significant number of in-latPS, Claimant was afforded an opportunity by ation to anticipate not only the charge e discipline which would upon proof of the list him. Claimant was able to clarify his ent that the copious number of absences

 However, we are not persuaded by Claimant

 past record to establish his guilt as
 Form I Award No. 10396
 Page 3 Docket No. 10328
 2-MP-MA-'R5

 Upon review of the entire record, the Board finds the discipline imposed commensurate with the gravity and nature of the offense. The Claimant had received a prior, 30-day deferred suspension for failure to protect his assignment. The Carrier and CJ aimant had four (4) conferences on October 3(l, 1981, May 29, 1.982, Juno 30, 1982 and July 2, 19R2, during which tire issue of Claimant's attendance and absenteeism were discussed. Claimant acknowledged at the formal hearing that his attendance record was the subject of the conferences on those occasions, and he had been informed that his attendance record was excessive and required improvement.

 Claimant's record of absences, is such that this Board find his employment to be a serious liability to the Carrier. In addition, the Carrier has shown that Claimant cannot reasonably he expected to resume work and maintain an acceptable attendance record. The Board finds the C1atmant's dismissal to be re a son <ihle and without caprice.

      Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          Bv Order of Second Division


Attest:
      ".~y J. /re v - Executive Secretary


Pated at Chicago, Il li.noi s, this 15th day of Nay, 19-95.