PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:


RC1aim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that appellant P. N. Pappas, Assistant Chief Dispatcher Harrisburg,Pa., is not guilty of the offense - Failure to report for duty at the Harrisburg Movement Office, 600 Corporate Circle, Harrisburg, Pa., on July 20, 1980, which in light of your previous attendance record constitutes excessive absenteeism, assessed fifteen
 (15) days discipline on G-32, Notice of Discipline, dated August 6, 1980.· .
 OPINION OF BOARD: This case closely parallels a companion case involving
 the same Organization and the same Carrier with respect
 to a charge of excessive absenteeism. In that case, Award No. 24540, we held
 that a pattern of excessive absenteeism was present when the Claimant therein
 was mostly absent on days preceding his normal rest days and was counseled by
 his supervisor on three occasions before disciplinary action was initiated.
 In the case before us, we have an analogous situation. Claimant,
 an Assistant Chief Dispatcher, was charged with failure to report for duty on
 July 20, 1980 which in light of his previous attendance record, was considered
 excessive absenteeism by Carrier. An investigation was held on August 1,
 1980 and he was assessed a fifteen (15) day deferred suspension. This
 disposition was appealed.
 From the record, he had been counseled on at least three occasions
 within the year preceding the investigative hearing. There is no dispute
 regarding the inherent propriety of these absences since Claimant properly °
 reported off, but Carrier perceived these absences as being excessive.
 In considering the parties arguments, we agree with Carrier's basic
 position. Claimant's attendance pattern certainly raised a reasonable concern,
 but more importantly, Carrier counseled him on several occasions about his
 absences. This is a telling distinction since he was officially advised that
 his attendance record would be monitored. When he was again absent on July
 20, 1980, it was not unreasonable for Carrier to institute charges in view
            Award Number 24541 Page 2



of its prior admonitions. We do not feel, however, that the fifteen (15) days deferred suspension is warranted herein since Claimant properly reported off on the days he was absent, and there is some indication that he might have been i11. Be was hospitalized in November, 1979. Moreover, his long term service with Carrier merits some consideration. We believe that a Letter of Warning is a more appropriate and balanced disciplinary response and more in accordance with the established precepts of progressive discipline. The instant penalty is reduced to a Letter of Warning. The reasoning in Award No. 24540 is controlling herein.
        FINDINGS: The Third 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 Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
        That the discipline was excessive.


                        A W A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADVUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
 Nancy De~r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of October, 1983. -.,