The Claimant had been employed as a Machinist at the Carrier's Juniata Locomotive Shop, Altoona, Pennsylvania, for approximately five years when, on March 8,1998, she failed to report for her 11:00 P.M. assignment. Following Investigation and Hearing, the Carrier assessed a five day deferred suspension for poor attendance. In this Claim, the Organization first argues that the Carrier denied the Claimant her right to a fair Hearing by reading her past attendance history into the record at her trial. Secondly, it contends that under the circumstances the Carrier had an obligation to counsel the Claimant. As a single mother raising a child, the Claimant may have had FMLA rights that could have been asserted if the Carrier had done so. A five-day deferred suspension as a first action was excessive.

The Carrier's Investigation established that over the two-month period prior to her absence on March 8, 1998, the Claimant had missed work on January 22, February 18,19 and 25. Including the March 8 date, the Claimant thus missed five of 32 assigned workdays during a period of three months, several days occasioned by sickness, others denoting no reason. The Board concludes that the pattern of attendance was clearly unsatisfactory and rejects the argument that the time frame selected for this assessment was arbitrary.

With respect to Foreman John Hartman referring to the Claimant's prior record during the Investigation and Hearing, the Board finds that substantial authority supports the Carrier's right to place that record into evidence for purposes of considering the quantum of discipline to be assessed, and that no prejudice to the Claimant's rights was demonstrated 6y doing so in this instance. The transcript shows that she was afforded a generous opportunity to produce evidence of her choosing, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to freely make her case in an orderly, wellchaired Hearing with the assistance of a competent Local Union representative.

The Board has consistently stressed the importance of regular attendance as it bears on the reliability of the Carrier's operations and the workload absenteeism imposes on the employee's fellow workers. In view of the Claimant's previous record in this regard, and particularly in light of the verbal warning she received a month earlier, the Board finds that a five-day deferred suspension was not arbitrary or capricious.

AWARD