(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerke, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

(1) Carrier violated the Agreement between the Parties when it arbitrari2y and in abuse of discretion dismissed Extra Clerk, Mr. Jerry Torain from service, effective April 23, 1976, and

 (2) Carrier shall, as a result, be required to reinstate Mr. Torain to service with all rights unimpaired, clear his record of the charges, and compensate him for all wage losses from April 23, 1976 until he is restored to Carrier's service.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was an Extra-Clerk assigned to the Baltimore
 Terminal Extra Board, with about 23 months service at the time of his dismissal. On March 24, 1976, the Claimant was called a total of eight times to report for duty. Such calls were made to two telephone numbers the Claimant had given as contact numbers; 6 such calls were unanswered, and 2 were answered, once by the Claimant's father and once by his sister, neither of whom professed knowledge of his whereabouts. Additionally, while the Claimant contended he had been in contact continuously with the office before and after the March 24 date, the Carrier claims no indication of such contact until March 28, 1976. The Carrier points to Rule 25 which guarantees payment for forty hours per week unless affected employe fails to respond to a call, as the basis for emphasizing the importance of the Extra Board employes being available for work, The Organization contends, contrariwise, that such language represents the only action a Carrier can take (i.e. a reduction of the guarantee) if an employe fails to respond to a call. Based upon the Claimant's failure to respond on March 24, 1976, a hearing was convened, the results of which was his dismissal; his prior record of discipline was Cited as a further basis for his removal.

 We are not persuaded by the Organization's claims that the only penalty for failure to answer a call is a reduction of the guarantee under Rule 25. The Carrier has an obligation to maintain a viable operation;


to do so, it must be able to expect a responsive and available work force. In and of itself, the Claimant's non-availability on March 24, 1976, would not be an offense deserving dismissal. However, this incident was the last in a series of missed calls or opportunities spanning a 13-month period, and for which the Claimant had received progressive discipline; the last such discipline was a 3o-day suspension, ending a month or so prior to this incident. The Carrier concluded correctly that such a pattern of disregard was intolerable. We find no basis for upsetting the Carrier's decision in this case.

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


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employer 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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; -and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim is denied.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of September 1979.