Peter R. Meyers, Referee


              (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes


PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
              (National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)


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

                    - Northeast Corridor -


1. The dismissal of Machine Operator V. Watson for alleged violation of 'Amtrak's Policy on Absenteeism' was improper, unwarranted and in violation of the Agreement (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-701D).

 2. The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, his record cleared of the charge leveled against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed by the Carrier as a Machine Operator
 at Carrier's T.L.S. Undercutter Campsite at Perryville,
 Maryland; Claimant had over three years of service with Carrier. Claimant was
 absent from service on July 13, August 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 22, 24, and 25, 1983.
 On August 25, 1983, Claimant was notified to attend a trial in connection with
 these absences and his alleged violation of Carrier's absenteeism policy.
 After a postponement, the trial was held on September 26, 1983. As a result
 of the trial, Claimant was notified on October 5, 1983, that he was dismissed
 from service. The Organization then filed a Claim on Claimant's behalf
 challenging his dismissal.

 This Board has reviewed all of the evidence in this case, and finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record that the Claimant was in violation of Amtrak's Policy on Absenteeism when he was absent from work on July 13, August 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 22, 23, 24, and 25, 1983. The Claimant admits his absenteeism. Moreover, the Claimant did not offer any evidence of permission to be absent on the Hence, the Carrier proved the violation of the Agreement and properly subjected the Claimant to disc
Once this Board determines that there is a proven violation subjecting a Claimant to discipline, discipline imposed by the Carrier. It is well settled that this Board will not set aside discipline unless the Carrier's action was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. In procedure. First-time offenders receive a letter of warning; second-time offenders, in a twelve-month period, receive a ten-day suspension; and thirdtime offenders are subje
                      Award Number 26068 Page 2

                      Docket Number MW-26195


received his letter of warning on October 12, 1982, and then he received a ten-day suspension for a second violation on December 2, 1982. This latest incident, then, was the third in twelve months and subjected the Claimant to discharge. He was aware of the consequences of continued violation of the Absenteeism Rules, and he did not reform his behavior. Hence, this Board finds that the Carrier was not unreasonable or arbitrary in its decision to terminate the Claimant.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division 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 Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:
                00.

      Oiam "V


        Nancy J. ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of July 1986.

                                          ~GYIVED

                                          ~O


                                          h: *:,~c,: .