PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

 (1) The dismissal of James Leak, Jr. for 'Unauthorized absenteeism on the following dates: November 28, 29, 30, 1979' was excessive and without just and sufficient cause (System Docket No. 534).

 (2) James Leak, Jr. shall be reinstated with seniority vacation and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated in compliance with Agreement Rule 6-A-1(d)."

 OPINION OF BOARD: James Leak, Jr., the Claimant, was dismissed from service
 for unauthorized absenteeism. The Claimant was employed as a truck driver with seniority since January 22, 1976.

 The Absences which caused Claimant to be so charged occurred on November 28, 29, and 30, 1979. The Organization asserts the transcript supports a finding Claimant notified the Carrier of his reasons prior to the absences. The Organization argues in the alternative that, assuming arguendo the Claimant was absent from duty without proper authority, the supreme penalty of discharge is excessive and not commensurate with the offense.

 This Board, after reviewing the transcript, concludes the Claimant did not receive permission to be absent on the three days involved. Despite claims of discrimination and harassment, we agree with the Carrier's conclusion and find absolutely no evidence of such arbitrary conduct other than Claimant's assertions made at the trial. By Claimant's own admission, he acknowledged his absences, but provided no evidence of having secured authorization for the absences.

 Having so found, this Board now addresses the Organization position concerning the degree. of discipline. We find the Carrier's consideration of Claimant's lengthy past record in determining the extent of disciplics to be proper and necessary. The evidence adduced sustains the Carrier's findings and justifies the imposition of discipline. The consideration of prior corrective action is, as stated above, an essential step in the use of progressive discipline. Considering, the Carrier's expectation that employes work on a regular basis, the Board finds the Carrier did not act in an unreasonable manner.

Award Number 24252~1~

Docket Number NW-21+284


Page 2

 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.

 A W A R D
Claim denied.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary

NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 By
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of March 1983.

 13
 eid~e

 2 31983

 ~/CQ o Office