(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company

1. The Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when on March 14, 1972, it summarily dismissed W. R. Prater, Clerk, Houston, Texas, from service of the Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company.

 2. Clerk W. R. Prater shall now be reinstated to the service of the Carrier with seniority and all other rights unimpaired.

 3. Clerk Prater shall now be compensated for all wage and other losses sustained account this dismissal.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Charges were filed by the Carrier against Claimant on March
 7, 1972, alleging failure to protect his job assignment as relief caller at Settegast Yard on March 6, 1972. Claimant was thereafter held out of service pending a formal investigative hearing which was held on March 10, 1972. Thereafter, on March 14, 1972 Claimant was dismissed from the service of Carrier for failu
Careful consideration of the entire record compels the conclusions that Claimaat received a fair hearing and that substantial evidence was ad. duced to support the Carrier's charge. Petitioner urges that mitigating circumstances in the form of an automobile malfunction prevented Claimant from protecting his assignment. However, the uncontroverted record places Claimant at least 70 miles from his assigned duty post on March 6, 1972 when the alleged radiator trouble occurred; some 30 minutes before he was to report for work at 7:00 a.m. Nor, does the record adequately explain why Claimant failed to establish communication with Carrier to report this incident until some 24 hours
Having thus established the sufficiency of the evidence and the fairness of the proceeding, the Boar and an abuse of discretion. It is established by innumerable awards of the Board that the Carriers' assessment of discipline, after a fair hearing whereby substantial evidence a showing of such arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious action as to constitute an abuse of principle that an employe's past disciplinary record may be considered


in assessing the amount of discipline to be assigned for a proven offense. Accordingly, under all of the circumstances herein, including Claimant's unsatisfactory record during his period of 17 months employment by the Carrier, we cannot find Carrier's assessment of dismissal arbitrary, una· reasonable or capricious. Thus, for the foregoing reasons we find no violation of the Agreement.

          FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


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

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD All pxa"itw By Order of 19iird Division


ATTEST:
        Executiv3 Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of November 1973.