Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11133
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11141
 2-SOU-MA-'87
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Ronald Nelson when award was rendered.
 (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
 ( Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Southern :Railway Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Southern Railway Company violated the Controlling Agreement, Rules #30 and 34, but not limited thereto, and were arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory, when they unjustly suspended Machinist G. D. Savage, Chattanooga, TN., from service for thirty (30) calendar days without pay beginning July 21, 1984 and ending August 19, 1984.

 2. That accordingly, the Southern Railway Ccnpany be ordered to pay Machinist G. D. Savage for all lost time wages, with all his rights unimpaired and clear his record of the charge.

 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 herein was subjected to a 30 day suspension for excess absenteeism, being late and/or leaving work prior to the completion of the shift on:



The applicable provision of the Agreement provides in part:
 Form 1 Award No. 11133
 Page 2 Docket No. 11141
 2-SOU-MA-'87
 "RULE 30. (a) In case an employee is unavoidably
 kept from work, he will not be discriminated a
 gainst. An employee detained from work on account
 of sickness or for any other good cause shall no
 tify his foreman as early as possible.
 (b) The provisions of paragraph (a) shall be
 strictly complied with. Excessive absenteeism
 (except due to sickness under paragraph (a) above)
 and/or tardiness will not be tolerated and employ
 ees so charged shall be subject to the disciplinary
 procedures of Rule 34.
 (c) An employee in service who fails to pro
 tect his assignment due to engaging in other em
 ployment shall be subject to dismissal.
 RULE 34. (a) An employee will not be removed from
 service or disciplined (including discharge) except
 for just and sufficient cause after a preliminary
 hearing. This does not apply to new employees re
 moved from service within sixty (60) days of hire,
 account failure to approve application for employ
 ment.

 (b) During the preliminary investigation (the _
 discussion of events leading to any disciplinary
 action), the right of an employee to be accompanied
 by his duly accredited representative (local chair
 man or committeeman) should he so desire, and pro
 vided he is readily available, is recognized. Any
 discipline assessed at the preliminary investiga
 tion will be confirmed by letter addressed to the
 employee (with copy to his local chairman) within
 five (5) days from the date thereof which shall
 include the specific reasons for the assessment of
 such discipline.
 (c) If such employee disagrees with the dis
 ciplinary action taken, he may himself, or through
 his duly accredited representative, request a for
 mal investigation: such request shall be submitted
 in writing within five (5) days from the date of
 written confirmation of the assessment of disci
 pline given the employee under Section (b) above.
 If such request is made verbally at the time dis
 cipline is assessed under paragraph (b) above, the
 imposition of the discipline will be held in abey
 ance pending the completion of a formal investiga
 tion; provided such verbal request is confirmed in
 writing within five days thereof. However, disci
 pline will not be held in abeyance in any case
 involving a major offense.
 Form 1 Award No. 11133
 Page 3 Docket No. 11141
 2-SOU-MA-'87
 (d) Formal investigation, if requested under
 Section (c) above, shall be held within five (5)
 days from the date request therefor is made and it
 shall be conducted by a carrier officer superior in
 rank to the officer assessing the discipline to
 determine the propriety thereof. At such investi
 gation the employee(s) involved shall be entitled
 to assistance of his duly accredited representa
 tive(s). The Carrier officer conducting the formal
 investigation shall receive all evidence, including
 testimony or statements of witnesses concerning the
 act or acts upon which the discipline was based,
 and he shall render a decision affirming, modifying
 (by increasing or decreasing) or revoking the prior
 disciplinary action. Such decision shall be ren
 dered within ten (10) days following the date on
 which such formal investigation is completed."

 Based upon evidence adduced at the preliminary Investigation, Claimant was dismissed from service, however, the dismissal was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a formal Hearing which was timely requested by the Claimant. The formal Investigation resulted in a confirmation of the finding of guilty of the charges originally cited against the Claimant, however, the disciplinary action was modified from that of dismissal to a thirty (30) calendar day suspension without pay.

 The gist of the Claimant's position on appeal is that the testimony and supporting evidence shows that Claimant was absent, late or left work early for a good cause, and was unavoidably kept fran work due to personal illness, personal business and problems, and the illness of a family member.

 Carrier's position is, that the facts show that Claimant's absences, tardiness, and leaving early acre unjustified in the face of the employee's obligation to work, and the Controlling Agreement.

 It is well settled that in disciplinary cases, the Carrier has the burden of establishing by clear and substantial evidence that the employee is guilty of the charges lodged against him. The function of the Board is to review the record, ascertain whether the Controlling Agreement had been complied with, that the Claimant had been afforded the protection of due process, that there was substantial evidence to sustain a finding of just and sufficient cause for the discipline! imposed, and that the action taken by the Carrier was not arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Second Division Award 6368.

 The only matters in dispute are the measure of the evidence, and the disciplinary action taken by the Carrier.

 There is no factual dispute regarding the accuracy of the days in question, and the record clearly shows that Claimant, by his own testimony, was absent, tardy, or left early for reasons not contemplated by Rule 30(a) and (b) of the Controlling Agreement.
 Form 1 Award No. 11133
 Page 4 Locket No. 11141
 2-SOU-MA-'87
due to sickness . . ., and tardiness . . .," the Carrier is faced with the
 problem of balancing the competing interest of legitimate employee absences
 and the need to have a stable and productive work force. This Board has re
 spectively held that the Carrier is entitled to have an employee who is pre
 sent on the job and to expect reasonable attendance by its employees, and that
 the interests of the other employees and the Carrier, in operating a produc
 tive and profitable enterprise, must outweigh the personal interests of the
 individual employee experiencing attendance problems. See Second Division
 Awards 7348 and 6710.
The Claimant's own testimony, as contained in the record, clearly shows that his absences on the days in question were for personal reasons and not within the meaning of the exculpatory clause. The Carrier met the standard of proof as shown by the evidence in the record.

 The record shows that the discipline imposed by the Carrier was in keeping with the Claimant's record with the Carrier, and accordingly will not be disturbed by this Board.








                  O;lr

Attest:
        ancy J ~r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of January 1987.