(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) working days' suspension imposed upon Repairman T. L. Callow III, for alleged 'excessive absenteeism' is without just and sufficient cause and on the b
(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, with five years of service with Carrier, left
 work early on October 21, 1983, and on October 25, 1983; on
 both days he complained of being ill and had permission from his Supervisor to
 leave. Further, on November 4, 1983, Claimant properly notified Carrier that
 he was unable to work that day. Subsequently, by letter dated November 9,
 1983, Claimant was charged with excessive absenteeism by virtue of the two
 early quits and the absence on November 4th, coupled with his prior attendance
 record. Following an investigation, he was found guilty and assessed a ten
 day suspension.

 Petitioner insists that Claimant complied with all the terms of Rule 28(a), which provides:

Further, it is contended that illness is a proper cause for absence from duty. The Organization argues that the discipline in this case was both unwarranted and excessive.

 Carrier notes that Claimant had been counseled and warned with respect to his attendance, including absenteeism, tardy starts and early quits, on March 21, 1983, to no avail. Carrier argues that the three incidents herein were all within a month and in light of the entire record were intolerable. Furthermore, Carrier states that its discipline in this case was in fact lenient.
                        Docket Number MW-26390


The Board notes that prior to the three incidents specified in this dispute, Claimant had been absent 15 times in 1983, left work early on two occasions and was late on five different days. Discipline for excessive absenteeism has become more common in the work place over the last several years due to persistent employe infractions in this area. It must be made clear that the employment relationship requires regular attendance as a fundamental aspect of the employe's part of the bargain. Although each case must be evaluated on its facts, poor attendance, even though for good cause and with supervisory approval, need not be tolerated. Thus, in this case, the three current incidents in themselves would not be a reasonable basis for any discipline; however, in the light of the past warning and the clearly excessive pattern for the firs and the ten day suspension cannot be considered to have been excessive. The Claim must be denied.

        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 ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of November 1987.