('Chicago and North Western Transportation Company PARTIES TD DISP11Ta: (Brotherhood of Railvap, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( freight lssdlers, B:psasa and station Employes

 32ATWW OF CLAIM: Carrier did not violate the Agreement with the Brotherhood
 of filvay, ]Mine and Steamship Clerks as alleged, when
 it dismissed Mr. Willie KcGee, Yard Clark, Proviso, Illinois, from the service
 of the Carrier for came on ft T, 1981.
As the Agreement mess not violated, Mr. McGee is not entitled to be returned to service with allbghlg unimpaired with payment-7cr all time lost as claimed in his behalf by the Clarks' Organisation.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute herein has been submitted to the Board by the
 Carrier. ft involves the disaissai of a yard clerk, Willie
 McGee, for allegedly failipg to jrotert his assignment on April 24, 1981.
The record show that McGee was assigned to a yard clerk position at Carrier's Proviso lard, with starting time of 11:59 P.M. On April 2Ts 1981, he ms notified to repast for imvsstigatim, scheduled for 8:00 A.M., May 1, 1981, an the charge:

The investigation was conducted as scheduled and McGee vas dismissed frca service at the, end of ,;31s assignment which commenced at 11:59 P.M., May 6, 1981. The only testimony presented at the investigation vas the state-. sent of McGee*

 The re-z' shots that McGee vas on his vay to work, bad stopped to eat, and his car vas involved in a non-wowing accident. No immediately called the Carrier's Chief Clerk to notify him of the accident. The following is an excerpt from the transcripts



          "A. That's what I said, I probnb3y. I won't be able to make it in or, yon knos. I don't think Ila going to be able to make it in, or, I don't knar, bat, (inaudible), an accident, you know. So. He said that, ah, well, let's see if yon, if you ma try to sake it in alter you get dons with the accident, you know.


          Q. But at that time, it was up in the air then as to whether you would be in, is that cocreatt


        A. I think so, ales, you know, I just ....


        Q. I didn't hear your answer, I'm sorry.


        A. Well, it was up in the air I would say so, yes, sit."


There is no dispute that McGee did not contact the Chief Clerk later to advise him; definitely that he would not be in. We agree with the- Carrier that at same point he should bays realized that he was not going to be able to get to work, and that he shoalA.hawe called in to so advise. Rule 14 of Car rier's General Regulations sad Safety Rules rends:

        "Floployses must report for duty at the designated time and place. They waft be alert, attentive and devote theskselves exclusively to the Oompany's service whi They must moat &boost themselves from duty, exchange duties with or substitute others in their place, without proper au h'..


If this were the first disciplinary case involving McGee,, we would agree that dismissal was harsh and eo:esssive. However, his prior waft record, since being employed in 1978, vas far from satisfactory, the latest entry being dismissal on March 9, 1981 and reinstatement on a leniency basis on April 6, 1981. The Carrier could properly consider claimant's prior record in arriving at the discipline to be imposed.

 The Board has noted the Organization's contention that Mertes's procedural rights were violated in t because of the seas officer acting is multiple capacities, and claimant allegedly being denied lull right of appeal. We find no proper basis for such contention. Furthermore, the record shoes that no such contention was made in the handling of the dispute on the property, and it is well settled that issues and defenses not raised in the bsnd1lag of the dispute on the property may not properly be raised for the first time before the Board.

        The c3.sia of the Carrier will be uph".

                    Award lumber 24357 Pass 3

                    Docket Number CIr24485


        FMIIGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Boardq upon the whole record and all the evidencep finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the fhrrier and the Haployes involved in this dispute are respectively Oatzier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Acts as approved Juns 21p 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved hereinj and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        The dismissal of clerk Willie McGee is upheld.


                      NA170RAL RAEBQ1D ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                    · By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
 -007 Rosemarie Breach - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chiosgop Illinois, this 13th day of May 1983.
tl"