Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10759
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10851
 2-NRPC-MA-'86
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Raymond E. McAlpin when award was rendered.
 ( International Association of Machinists and
 ( Aerospace Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( National Railroad Passenger Corporation

 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 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.

The Claimant, S. Larson, a Machinist with the Carrier and in service for ten years, was given a 5-day deferred suspension for absenteeism as a result of an investigation held on March 29, 1984. The Claimant was charged with violations of Rules K, L, and the attendance policy of the Carrier in connection with absences which occurred on February 6, 7, 8, 13, and 15, 1984.

 The Organization argued that the Carrier did not prove the Claimant's guilt in this matter. It notes the Claimant was on vacation and, while on vacation, had developed a rash. The Claimant marked off on each day February 6, 7, and 8, and on February 10 was under a doctor's care. There was some concern that the disease could be communicable, and the Claimant brought a doctor's note. With respect to the absences which occurred on February 13 and February 15, these were beyond the Claimant's control -- one involved car trouble and the other involved having to take a child to the dentist. The Organization also noted that the Claimant did show remorse for his absenteeism.
 Form 1 Award No. 10759
 Page 2 Docket No. 10851 _fir
 2-NRPC-MA-'86
 The Carrier argued the absences, particularly those that occurred on the
 13th and 15th, were unacceptable. The Claimant was absent 5 of the 9 calendar
 days during the period, he had been previously warned for attendance in July
 of 1983, and the Claimant should be familiar with the Rule. The Carrier also
 notes that it did take the Claimant's service and home situation into account
 and notes the Claimant was given a deferred suspension under the circumstances.
 Upon complete review of the evidence, the Board finds the Carrier afforded
 the Claimant a fair and impartial Hearing as provided for in the Rule. The
 Claimant's absences on the 13th and 15th were within the control of the
 Claimant. The Board notes that the Claimant had been counseled regarding
 absenteeism only a few months previous to these incidents and should have been
 aware of the concern the Carrier had for his absenteeism. With respect to the
 absences which occurred on February 6, 7, and 8, the Claimant did furnish a
 doctor's certificate stating that he had been under doctor's care for the 3
 days in question. Absences for legitimate reasons, if they are excessive, are
 typically counted towards an employe's overall attendance record; and while
 the Claimant was certainly off an extensive time during the period in
 question, his overall absentee record does not seem to be particularly
 excessive. The Carrier's own attendance policy calls for 3 instances of
 absenteeism within a month's time prior to discipline. As noted earlier, the
 absences on February 13 and 15 would not be excused, however, the previous 3
 absences were accounted for. The Claimant did follow the mark-off procedure

 of the Carrier, and in the opinion of the Board discipline was not warranted -
 in this matter. Therefore, the claim will be sustained. The Claimant is
 specifically advised by the Board to take great care to protect his assignment
 in the future.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest
 Nancy J.~ xectitive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of February 1986.