(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

(1) The dismissal of Track Laborer Gary Elsworth on May 15, 1974 was without just and sufficient cause and in abuse of the Carrier's discretion (System File B-1162).

 (2) Track Laborer Gary Elsworth shall be reinstated to service with seniority, vacation and all pay for all time lost; all in conformance with the provisions of Article 4, Rule 1(d) of the Memoran 1955.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was dismissed from service on May 15, 1974,
 for being absent from duty in the vicinity of
 Olathe, Kansas from May 6, 1974 through May 15, 1974, without obtaining
 permission from proper authority in violation of General Notice Para
 graphs 3 and 4, General Rules A, B, and M, and General Regulations 176,
 177, 189, and 195 of the Carrier's Rules for the Maintenance of Way
 and Structures effective July 1, 1973.

 It is not denied that Claimant was absent from work without permission for a total of 26k days between January 2 and May 15, 1974. The record clearly discloses that Claimant was verbally warned approximately 10 times about his unau written warning to the effect that if he missed any more work without notifying his foreman, he would be dismissed from service. Nevertheless, Claimant failed to report f thereafter. The Carrier received no communication from him whatsoever attempting to secure authority for his absence or at least give some explanation therefor. Finally, at about 2:00 P.M. on May 15, 1974, Claimant met the gang at Olathe, Kansas, to get his personal belongings from the outfit car, and pic he talked to his foreman who informed him he had been dismissed from service.

 The subject of this claim rests on the premise that the discipline of dismissal was exceedingly that the Claimant demonstrated a callous disregard for his employment


status when he failed to even attempt to secure authority for his absence, after having received about his excessive absenteeism. Arbitrators generally uphold management's right to terminate employ is anchored in recognition of the fact that a stable work force is a critical ingredient to the proper functioning of an industrial community. To be more specific, efficiency and ability to compete in the market place are dependent upon employes who report for work with reasonable regularity. Consequently, the Carrier had the right to impose the discipline of dismissal on Claimant for his ex 20509, 20505, 20407, 20174, 19787, 19112, 14601).

          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 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

                          By Order of Third Division


. 'ATTEST: ~~#
 Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April 1976.