(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee ( (formerly Transportation-Communication Division, BRAC) PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (George P, Baker, Richard C. Bond, Jervis Langdon, Jr., ( and Willard Wirtz, Trustees of the Property of ( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Com
 munication Division, BRAC, on the Penn Central Company
 (former NYC Western District), TC-5834, that:

 1. The dismissal of Mr. P. H. Dibell based on the rule infraction, in our estimation is quite unreasonable and constitutes an arbitrary exercise of the Management's discretion and authority. Mr. Dibell admits to the violation but such wrong was
2. That the Carrier reinstate Mr. Dibell with full seniority rights unimpaired and compensate him for all time lost.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The claimant in this case, a Block Operator, was charged
 with being off the property without permission before being
 properly relieved at about 7:15 a.m. on May 26, 1971, The record clearly indi
 cates that at the investigation on the property the claimant admitted that he
 was not present at the tower but wet at the Lake Avenue Coffee Shop having cof
 fee with the third trick crew.

 The Organization contends that the claimant was never advised of the rules and that, in any event, the discipline meted out wag excessive. The Organization cites an Awar imposition of the dismissal penalty was excessive and reduced the penalty to a ninety day suspension.

 The Carrier contends that the claimant's guilt of the charge of absenting himself from duty befo any remorse concerning his actions. While it is possible that the claimant was not notified of the rules covering relief from duty, the fact is that he was previously employed as a Block Operator by the New York Central in 1952 and worked as such until 1959 and had been rehired an a Block Operator by the Penn Central on March 17, 1970.


In this case it is uncontroverted that the claimant was absent without permission and without being properly relieved. This Board has held in Award dk146U1 (Ives) that: "Claimant's conduct was deliherate, and the

Carrier had a right to impose the discipline it believed necessary unless the penalty was arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by the record. Unauthorized absences from duty, if proven, are serious offenses, and often result in dismissal from service. In this Board in the matters of assessing discipline, we will not upset the punishments decided upon by

greater than that which the Board might choose."

        F7hP1_~:(_'.S; The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        'that the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Rrnp7.oyes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Nailceay Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That Ui.s Divisiun of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        The Agreement was not violated,


                    A W A R D


        The claim is denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of 'fay 1973.

 ,...:.tea