(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Western Railroad Association

(a) The Association violated Rules 1, 2, 3, 27, and 28, among others, of the Rules Agreement when it arbitrarily dismissed Claimant B. P. Boyle from service June 3, 1978.

 (b) Claimant should now be restored to service with all seniority rights unimpaired and his record cleared.

 (c) Claimant is also to be paid for all lost time including medical expenses, if any.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Following the suspension of claimant, B. P. Boyle, on
 June 3, a hearing was held on the property. Boyle,
 a 17-year employe, was charged with failure to protect his assignment on
 June 2, 1977, being absent without authority on that date, and using foul
 and abusive language in a telephone conversation with the Assistant Manager
 of the Tariff Department (insubordination).

 On June 14, 1977, as a result of that hearing, and after a review of claimant's personnel file, claimant was terminated from service.

 Upon appeal of the decision, Carrier offered to return claimant to work, effective March 1, 1978,.on a leniency basis only and with the proviso that he serve a one-year probationary period and waive all rights, in writing, to a hearing during that time. Claimant refused the offer and the termination remained in effect.

 Based on the record before us, this Board concludes that claimant would have been wise to have accepted that offer. Despite the fact that he was a long-term employe, his attendance and tardiness record was aptly described by Carrier as "horrendous." In fact, he had accepted a five-day suspension and a twenty-day suspension on two occasions in the past in recognition of his long history of absences and his lack of punctuality.
 Award Number 22963
 Docket Number CL-22854

 Page 2

 Obviously, claimant did not learn from that experience. His failure to appear at work--when required and on time--could not be tolerated by Carrier. This Board has noted in numerous awards that at the heart of the industrial contract between employer and employe is the requirement that the employe adhere to duly constituted rules of attendance. Claimant in this case has consistently failed to do so.

 Nothing in the record leads this Board to believe that Carrier was either arbitrary or capricious in its decision to terminate claimant.

 Given the absence of questionable procedures on the part of Carrier or a failure to act reasonably in response to the events of June 2, 1977, the Board sees no reason to substitute its judgment for that of the employer.

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.

 AW A R D f,I

 Claim denied.

 ATTEST:

NATIONAL RAILROAD _IIDJOS~ BOARD

By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of August 1980.