(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (New Orleans Public Belt Railroad

(1) The dismissal of Bridgeman-Helper C. T. Ball 'as a result of unauthorized absence and failure to notify employer for absence November 30, 1976, after being granted a leave of absence for November 24th, 26th and 29th, 1976' was excessively harsh and disproportionate to the offense with which charged (System File 013.7).

 (2) Claimant C. T. Ball shall be reinstated to his former position with all seniority, vacation and any other rights unimpaired."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant in this case was employed as a Bridgeman
 Helper for the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad
 (NOPB), a switching and terminal railroad operating in the New Orleans
 Metropolitan Area. On or about November 22, 1976, he requested and
 was granted a leave of absence for November 24, 26, and 29, 1976, for
 the purpose of visiting relatives in Southern Florida. While enroute
 back to New Orleans, November 29, 1976, Claimant says he encountered
 inclement weather and remained at the house of a friend's mother
 overnight. As a result, Mr. Ball did not report to work on Tuesday,
 November 30, 1976. When Claimant did report to work on Wednesday,
 December 1, 1976, he was sent home by his Superior and advised that
 he would be dismissed. On December 2, 1976, Mr. D..D. Childress,
 Manager, Engineering and Maintenance wrote Claimant advising him
 that he was dismissed from the NOPB effective Wednesday, December 1,
 1976, at 8:00 a.m. "as a result of unauthorized absence and failure
 to notify employer for absence November 30, 1976, after being granted
 a leave of absence for November 24th, 26th and 29th, 1976."

 The Organization alleges that the inclement weather prohibited Claimant's driving back to New Orleans on the night of November 29, 1976. They argue that conditions "impelled a safe and prudent driver to dispense with any further driving until the weather cleared up,"


and that therefore Claimant's absence on Monday, November 30, 1976, should be excused. The Organization further maintains that even if, arguendo, Claimant's absence does constitute an unexcused absence, the penalty of dismissal is excessively harsh.

 Carrier, citing Rule 10 of the contractual Agreement, argues that Claimant failed, without sufficient cause, to report to work or to request an extension following the expiration of his leave of absence. As to the severity of the discipline, Carrier states that Claimant was reinstated on a leniency basis on September 16, 1976, with the understanding that he would thenceforth conform to attendance regulations. Carrier also notes that during the two months between Claimant's reinstatement and his dismissal he was absent from work ten (10) days in addition to the leave of absence.

 Based upon the record before us there is no question that Claimant was absent from work without leave on November 30, 1976. Claimant's testimony at his hearing not only does not refute this fact, but rather confirms it. We do not find the cost of a long distance phone call to be sufficient grounds for excusing Claimant's failure to report his anticipated absence to his supervisor. Upon review of the record and in particular Claimant's past employment record, we do not find Carrier's dismissal of Claimant to be excessively severe discipline. In light of Claimant's reinstatement with leniency on September 16, 1976, conditioned upon his improving attendance and Claimant's subsequent 10 days' absence between September 16, 1976 and his leave of absence, we find Claimant had ample opportunity to modify his behavior and failed to do so. He apparently is unable or unwilling to abide by reasonable rules of attendance at work. The claim shall 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 and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
                    Award Number 22320 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-22295


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: zg~-
 ag4~1~
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1M.