Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10644
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10722
 2-SSR-FO-185
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Seaboard System Railroad
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current and controlling agreement, Service Attendant E. D. Calvert, I. D. No. 92714 was unjustly suspended from service of the Seaboard System Railroad on September 11, 1983 through October 5, 1983, both dates inclusive, after a formal in vestigtion was held in the office of Mr. D. A. Lawson, Conducting Officer on August 30, 1983.
2. That accordingly, Service Attendant E. D. Calvert be compensated an equal amount of days that he failed to receive in the interim period of September 11, 1983 through October 5, 1983, both days inclusive, at the prorata rate of pay.
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 employes 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 E. D. Calvert entered the Carrier's service as a Service Attendant on August 23, 1977, at Nashville, Tennessee, and was so employed at the time of the incident giving rise to this dispute. The Claimant was suspended from service for twenty-five days, from September 11, 1983, until October 5, 1983.
On August 1, 1983, at approximately 10:30 P.M., Foreman Patton called the cab track looking for the Claimant, who was to have been there until 11 P.M. that night. Foreman Patton was informed that the Claimant was not there. Patton called back at 10:45 P. M. and was told that the Claimant was still not there and that his car was not in its usual parking space.
 Form 1 Award No. 10644
 Page 2 Docket No. 10722
 2-SSR-FO-185
As a result of this incident, the Claimant was charged with leaving his assignment without permission. Following an investigation on August 30, 1983, the Claimant was suspended from service for twenty-five days.
The Organization contends that the evidence shows that the Claimant was on duty and performing his job as instructed by his Supervisor. In support of this contention, the Organization cites Car Foreman V. O. Sneed's testimony at the hearing that he gave the Claimant a shop car report to deliver to the Bowl at 10:25 P. M. The Organization contends that after delivering the report and at the time Patton and Sneed were attempting to locate the Claimant, he was in the bathroom at the Clerk's office, as it was the closest bathroom to him at the time. The Organization cites Sneed's testimony that he looked for the Claimant only in the cab track and the Bowl Office Locker Room.
In response to the Carrier's allegation that the Claimant's car was not in its usual parking spot, the Organization submits that the Claimant drove his girlfriend's car to work that day.
Additionally, it is the Organization's position that even if the Claimant were guilty, the assessed discipline of twenty-five days was totally excessive for the offense.
Thus, the organization's position is that the Claimant was improperly suspended from service and must be reinstated with his seniority rights and compensated for all lost time and benefits, as provided in Rule 32.




The Carrier's position is that the evidence clearly shows that the Claimant was guilty of leaving his assignment without permission prior to the expiration of his tour of duty. In this regard, the Carrier argues that the Claimant was not at his usual work place when efforts were made to locate him. Furthermore, the Claimant's car was not in the usual parking place, and the Claimant produced no witnesses to prove that he was using his girlfriend's car and had placed it elsewhere.
 Form 1 Award No. 10644
 Page 3 Docket No. 10722
 2-SSR-FO-185
The Carrier contends that the disciplinary action taken against the Claimant was entirely justified.
After reviewing the record of this matter, this Board finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to prove that the Claimant was guilty of the offense of being away from his assigned work area without permission at approximately 10:30 P.M. on August 1, 1983. This Board also finds that the Claimant was afforded all of his rights with respect to the notice of charges against him and at the formal hearing into those charges. Hence, the Carrier had sufficient reason to discipline the Claimant.
It is fundamental that this Board will normally not second-guess a Carrier in the imposition of discipline unless the disciplinary action taken against a Claimant is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. There is substantial evidence of prior wrongdoing on the part of this Claimant, including three previous letters of reprimand and two previous suspensions for twenty and ten days. Hence, this Board sees no reason to set aside the twenty-five day suspension imposed by the Carrier for this latest incident of wrongdoing on the part of the Claimant.






ATTEST:
        Nancy ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of October 1985.