(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
( Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company
( Texas and Louisiana Lines



(1) The Carrier violated the current Clerks' Agreement at Houston, Texas, when on July 30, 1974, it arbitrarily and capriciously discharged Clerk R. Cheeks from the service of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Texas an cause.

(2) Clerk R. Cheeks be restored to the service of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Texas and Louisiana Lines, with full seniority, vacation and other employe rights restored unimpaired, paid a day's pay for July 30, 1974, and each subsequent date thereafter he could have performed service for the Carrier.

(3) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Texas and Louisiana Lines, be required to clear Clerk Cheeks' service record of the charges and discipline assessed in regard to the case at hand.

OPINION CF BOARD: Claimant was dismissed from Carrier's service after
an investigation held to determine whether he had
violated Rule 810, which reads:









The record contains evidence from which Carrier concluded that Claimant had made a misstatement of fact when he said he was sick during a period of absence. Review of the record shows that Carrier's finding was based on evidence which was of a compelling nature. The Hoard has no grounds upon which it could base a reversal of Carrier's finding.

The Employes have argued a number of defenses with vigor. However, the Hoard agrees with Carrier is that permission to be absent for sickness becomes an unauthorized absence when the person who represents that he is sick is not, in fact, sick. That is the basis of Carrier's action here and, as noted, that finding is amply supported by the record. Such a finding also disposes of the employe's argument that Claimant was not given the benefit of Rule 49. That Rule is not designed to provide leave for one who misstates the reason for requesting leave.

Claimant's record of prior offenses was considered by Carrier for the sole purpose of establishing the proper measure of discipline. No impropriety is involved in the use of a past record for that limited purpose.

Based upon the entire record in this case the Hoard has concluded that the claim mast be Denied.

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

That this Di~..ision of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied:


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEI9T BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 00.0 &
Executive Secretary

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16_h day of January 1976.