(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The dismissal of Section Laborer Dock Dingess was without just and sufficient cause and in violation of the Agreement (System File MW-BVE74-101).

 (2) Claimant Dock Dingess shall now be restored to service with seniority, vacation and all other rights (such as coverage under CA 23000) unimpaired and that he be reimbursed for monetary loss suffered in conformance with Agreement Rule 22(e).

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant habitually missed time from work and often
 failed to call in. He had been cautioned that he would be subject to investigation if he continued to do so. He received a corrected notice of investigatio the investigation to several days in January. The original notice had referred to habitual absence a reference in the corrected notice did not prejudice claimant. It is possible to read the two notices either way and it is true that the cause of clarity and certainty was not advanced by the ambiguity introduced by the corrected notice. The record shows that Claimant had been told that he would be subject to investigation, but faced separation from Carrier's service if he did not maintain acceptable attendance. He is a long service employe and that fact should be given appropriate weight. Under all of the circumstances of this case, Claimant should be restored to service, without pay for time lost.



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 Claimant should be restored to service without pay for time lost.

Claimant is to be restored to service, without pay for time lost.


ATTEST: (/VI1/, 00
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of May 1976.