PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The thirty (30) days of suspension imposed upon Section Foreman M. J. Stewart for 'reporting late for work' on January 27 and 29, 1982 and for allegedly 'making false statements to Assistant Division Engineer Beirne about the reason for being late on January 29th, 1982' was without just and sufficient cause and unwarranted (System File N&W 1982-6/MW-STL-82-2).
(2) The claimant shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered including overtime pay.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed as a Section Foreman at the Carrier's
 facility in the St. Louis, Mo., Terminal Division. He had
 been employed in the Carrier's service for approximately nine (9) years.
. The Carrier charges that on January 27 and 29, 1982, the Claimant
 reported late for work. In addition, the Carrier contends that the Claimant
 fabricated his reason for lateness on January 29, 1982.
These incidents resulted in a formal investigation held on February 17, 1982, in which the following charge was addressed:


The Carrier contends that the Claimant's lateness on the two dates is uncontroverted. It suggests that the Claimant's lateness created serious hardship in the form of delay to manpower and loss of efficiency. In addition, the Carrier argues that the Claimant's lateness was compounded on January 29, 1982 by his fabrication that a train blocked Route 159 in Edwardsville at 6:55 a.m. In light of this incident and the Claimant's past record of discipline, the Carrier concludes that the thirty (30) day suspension assessed Claimant was fair and reasonable.
The Organization insists that the Claimant acted properly. It points out that he notified his direct supervisor that he would be late on the days in question, in accordance with Rule 12(f), which reads:




The organization contends that the Claimant was taking medication for back spasms. This medication caused the Claimant to oversleep.






The Organization insists that the Claimant called the Carrier after he awoke. Therefore, the Organization concludes that he should not be assessed thirty (30) days' actual suspension.
The entire record has been reviewed. It establishes that Claimant was late for work on both January 27 and 29, 1982. As a Section Foreman, the Claimant had a special duty to arrive on time. This lateness impaired the Carrier's ability to function efficiently.
In addition, the record also establishes that the Claimant gave a false reason for his lateness on January 29, 1982. The record indicates that no train was blocking Route 159 at Edwardsville at 6:55 a.m. Thus, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the Carriers finding of Claimant's guilt.
The Claimant's discipline record has been examined to determine the appropriateness of the penalty. It reveals that the Claimant had previously been suspended for five (5) days as a result of unauthorized absence.
Unauthorized absence is a serious offense. As was noted in Second Division Award No. 6240:


In view of Claimant's guilt and prior record, the Board finds that a thirty (30) day suspension is reasonable.




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


                      Docket Number MW-25118

                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Nancy J .Aver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of August 1984.