( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of ;.:.e Brotherhood (GL-8826)

(1) Carrier violated the effective Agreement between the Parties when it unjustly dismissed Elevator Operator Elnora Scott from services, effective August 18, 1978, and

 (2) Carrier, as a result of such impropriety, shall be required to restore M's Elnora Scott to Carrier's service with all rights unimpaired and compensate her for all wage loss suffered since August 18, 1978.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, an elevator operator in Carrier's Central
 Building in Baltimore, Maryland, was discharged from service for failure to properly protect her assignment on Monday, June 26, 1978. A hearing was held in the matter on August 15, 1978. A copy of the transcript of that hearing has been made a part of the record of this case. A review of that transcript, together with the remainder of the record of this case, reveals that claimant was afforded all substantive procedural rights and that Carrier carried out the requirement for a fair and impartial hearing.

 The Organization contends that while claimant did not possess an exemplary work record, she should not have been discharged for a single violation--not reporting to work on June 26, 1978. It argues that the infraction does not justify discharge. The penalty is inappropriate.

 This Division, as well as all other Divisions of this Board, has repeatedly stated in a multitude of awards that employers have a right to expect that employes will show up for work on a regular basis. Employes have a responsibility to be at work unless excused by the employer or otherwise legitimately unable to be present. This concept cannot be challenged by any employe or employe organization in good conscience.


It is also well accepted by the parties in the railroad industry
 that progressive discipline and an effort to change the undesirable
 behavior of an employe is necessary before the ultimate penalty of discharge
 is imposed. This Board has traditionally subscribed to this concept and
 has so indicated in numerous awards. The fact that this Board at this late
 date is repeatedly confronted with dismissal cases for excessive absenteeism
 and tardiness by railroad employes is disturbing. As noted by Carrier,
 claimant has an atrocious work record. She has been counseled, she has been
 warned, and she has been disciplined for failing to protect her assignment.
 The June 26, 1978 incident was, as we stated in a recent Award 22877,
 the "straw that broke the camel's back."
 Employes are seldom discharged by any employer for a single or
 even a small number of unexcused absences or incidents of tardiness.
 Usually, when an employe develops a bad record, the last event, viewed in
 itself, is not severe. But when considered in light of the employe's
 total history, the event provides sufficient grounds to invoke discharge.
 Carrier in this instance has been exceedingly patient. Carrier has finally
 imposed the penalty of discharge. This Board can find no reason to upset
 that action.
 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 '°z
 Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
 That this Division of the Adjustment Boardchas jurisdiction over
 the dispute involved herein; and
 That the Agreement was not violated.
 _- i
 A W A R D

        Claim denied.


                                                          i

                                                            _e

                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Zg44~

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of June 1980.