STATE~1. ' OF CLAM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood,

1. The Carrier violated the current Clerks' Agreement at Houston, Texas, when on June 24, 1974, it arbitrarily and capriciously discharged Clerk Howard D. Abbe from the service of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Texas and Louisiana Lines, without just and sufficient cause.

 2. Clerk Howard D. Abbe be restored to the service of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Texas and Louisiana Lines, with full seniority, vacation and for June 24, 1974, and each subsequent date thereafter he could have performed service for the Carri
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed by Carrier on November 21, 1972.
 On June 24, 1974 Claimant was absent from his assignment and was subsequently dismissed from ser accordance with the applicable Agreement, the discipline was reaffirmed.

 Certain procedural questions were raised by Petitioner during the handling on the property, but were not brought to this Board. However, Petitioner objected to certain exhibits appended to Carrier's submission which had not been handled on the property. Petitioner's position is sound and the documents in question will not be considered; it is long established that such "new evidence" is inadmissible at this stage of the procedure.

 A study of the transcript of the investigation reveals that Claimant's defense for his absence w his wife allegedly notified Carrier of his problem. It must be observed, however, that although he presented a doctor's certificate, that document does not indicate that he was disabled and unable to telephone concerning his absence; the document simply indicates that Claimant was under a doctor's care on the date in question. Further, it is agreed by all in their testimony that Claimant's wife t June 24. There is some uncertainty as to the import of her telephone call with one version being that she was checking on whether Claimant was at work


and reporting his absence if he was not present, and the other version being a message for Claimant concerning some car trouble she was having. In any event, the evidence is that there was no notification of Carrier until at best 2:00 P.M. that he would not be at work that defy, even though his starting time was at 7:00 A.N evidence of record to support Carrier's conclusion that Claimant did not have permission to be absent.

 Unauthorized absences are serious offenses in this industry and often result in dismissal prom service (see Awards 14601, 16860 and 17750 among others). Petitioner has offered no mitigating argument with respect to claimant's prior record. As we said in Award 14601 in a dispute related to that herein, in the light of the broad latitude accorded Carrier's in assessing discipline, "we will not upset the punishment decided upon by the Carrier, even though the sanction chosen may be greater than that which the Hoard might choose."

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


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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

 That this Division 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.


                          RATIORAL RAILROAD ADJU&TKENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: lI//1/ /G i &&ZawroolExecutive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April 1976.