(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The ten (10) days of suspension imposed upon Repairman W. A. Gray for alleged 'Failure to report for duty at Canton M.W. Shop, Canton, Ohio on February 10, 1984, and reporting for duty after starting time on February 16, 1984, which in light of your previous attendance record (Absent July 12, 1983, August 3, 22, 1983, September 15, 1983, December 21, 1983; Late starts September 28, 1983, November 11, 1983, December 8, 20, 1983, January 19, 1984; Early quits June 3, 1983, October 13, 1983) constitutes excessive absenteeism' was arbitrary and without just and sufficient cause (System Docket CR-835-D).

 (2) The claimant's record shall be cleared of the charge leveled against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant is employed as a Repairman by the Carrier at its
 Canton, Ohio, Maintenance of Way Shop. Claimant was notified to attend a hearing in connection w As a result of the hearing, Claimant was assessed a ten-day suspension. The Organization subsequently filed a Claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging the suspension.

 This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case, and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify the Hearing Officer's finding that the Claimant was guilty of excessive absenteeism. This Board has found on numerous occasions in the past that every employe has an obligation and a duty to report on time and work his scheduled hours. No railroad can be efficiently operated if employes can choose on what days and at what time they want to come to work.

 Once this Board determines that there is sufficient evidence to support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board discipline unless we find it to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.





                        Docket Number MW-26498


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:
        Nancy ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of June 1987.