Edwin H. Benn, Referee


              (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes


PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
              (National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) - (Northeast Corridor


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

 1. The dismissal of M&W Electrician Helper G. J. Gruber for alleged 'Violation of Amtrak-BMWE Absenteeism Agreement' on January 25, 28 and 29, 1985 was without just and sufficient cause and in violation of the Agreement (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-1209D).

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

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a M&W Electrician Helper, held a seniority date
 of June 13, 1977, and worked at the Baltimore MSW Shop,
 Penn Station, Baltimore, Maryland. By letter dated February 5, 1985, Claimant
 was charged with being absent without proper authorization. After Hearing
 held on February 19, 1985, and by letter dated March 4, 1985, Claimant was
 dismissed from service.

 Claimant was absent from work on January 25, 28 and 29, 1985. According to the Foreman, on Janua began and stated that he overslept and would be in late. However, Claimant did not report on that date. According to Claimant, on January 25, he called in sick. Claimant testified that on January 28 and 29, he called in and stated merely that he would not be in.

 Procedurally, the Organization contests the fairness of the Hearing in that the decision was rendered by someone other than the Hearing Officer. Putting aside the issue of whether such an argument was timely raised, we find that contention lacking in merit. Nothing in the Agreement has been pointed to prohibiting the procedure utilized by the Carrier. Further, we note that the material facts concerning the absences are basically undisputed and do not require credibility determinations by someone other than the Hearing Officer. See Third Division Awards 24590, 21017, 17091, 9819.

 With respect to the merits, the Organization argues that discipline was not appropriate under the terms of the October 26, 1976 Memorandum of Agreement governing absenteeism since Claimant's absences on the dates at issue were legitimate due to personal illness. Although dispute exists con-
                      Award Number 26585 Pace 2

                      Docket Number MW-26902


cerning the legitimacy of the absences, we note that the charge against Claimant concerns Claima regulated by the Memorandum of Agreement. We are satisfied that the record demonstrates by substantial evidence that Claimant's absences were not authorized. Claimant's inform in does not equate to receiving authorization for the absences. See Second Division Award 7062.

 The Memorandum of Agreement provides at Paragraph 3 that dismissal is appropriate for the third offense within a 12 month period. Claimant's record shows a May 10, 1984, warning letter for excessive absences during February through May, 1984, and a 10 day suspension dated December 6, 1984, for absences without proper autho Claimant's third offense within the 12 month period thereby permitting dismissal. We therefore find
        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. Dever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of October 1987.