(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 Foreman L. Hammond
 for alleged 'Excessive lateness', 'In that you reported late for duty on
 ... January 10, 12 and 18, 1984' was arbitrary, capricious and without just
 and sufficient cause (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-796D).

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

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was subject to a Trial on the charge of "excessive
 lateness in reporting for duty ... in that you reported
 late for duty on ... January 10, 12, and 18, 1984." Following the Trial,
 Claimant was assessed a disciplinary penalty of 10 days' suspension.

 The Organization raised objection to the "lack of specificity" of the Trial charge, in that no violation of particular rule was cited. The Board finds that the charge was sufficiently precise to permit a full defense for the Claimant. No specific rule citation is required in regard to tardiness; whether or not the C determined at the Trial.

 The Trial Officer's refusal to permit questions concerning tardiness of other employes did not, in the Board's view, impair the conduct of a fair Trial.

 On the three dates specified, the Claimant reported late 30 minutes, 20 minutes, and 40 minutes, respectively. While he indicated that transportation problems were respo that the Carrier had accepted this reason as a satisfactory excuse. The record shows that the Carrier had previously counseled and given a Letter of Warning to the Claimant because of previous lateness. Although the Claimant did not recall these instances, there is no basis for the Board to assume that the Carrier's records in this regard are inaccurate.

 Employees are, of course, expected to arrive at work promptly. In this instance, the Claimant served as a Foreman, which should have made him particularly aware of this requirement, particularly since he supervised other employees. The previous counseling, the Letter of Warning, and the three tardinesses within an eight-day period clearly justified the Carrier's resulting disciplinary action
                        Docket Number MW-26453


        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:
        Nancy J er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of August 1987.