Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26852
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27078
 88-3-86-3-132
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elmer F. Thias when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The fifteen (15) days of suspension imposed upon Section Laborer J. C. Garza for 'failing to protect your assignment on January 3, 1985 in violation of Maintenance of Way Bulletin I#25' was unwarranted and without just and sufficient cause.

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

 FINDINGS:

 The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

The Claimant had been employed by the Carrier for a period of approximately fourteen years and w date of the incident here involved. He was absent from duty on January 3, 1985, but did not telephone his headquarters to explain the absence. Subsequently, the Carrier held Claimant charged as follows:

Following the Investigation, the Claimant was assessed a fifteen day actual suspension. The Organization contested this discipline, taking appropriate appeals on the pro Form Award No. 26852
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27078
 88-3-86-3-132

 We are advised that the Claimant is a Hispanic and does not speak, write or understand the English language. He required the assistance of an Interpreter at the Investigation. There he explained that the reason for his absence on January 3, 1985, was that he could not get his truck to run. He further explained that he did not call the Roadmaster because he did not have a telephone. We would understand that the Carrier does not fault the Claimant's inability to report the Roadmaster's office and obtain permission for his absence constitutes a clear-cut violation of Bulletin No. 25, justifying discipline.

 The real issue in this dispute is the imposition of a fifteen day actual suspension for a first offense of the nature here involved. The Organization has consistently the other hand, the Carrier points out that the Claimant was thrice previously warned on similar occasions and progressive discipline is being utilized to emphasize the importance of compliance with its rules. However, the-Organization objects to consider were not presented or discussed during the handling of the dispute on the property.

 Our review of the record compels us to sustain the objection raised by the Organization and we dismiss the three warnings from our consideration of this dispute. However, we do recognize a degree of substance in the Organization's position that our consideration of the entire record, it is our considered judgment that a ten day actual suspension should be substituted for that imposed and the Claimant compensated for hi





                              By Order of Third Division


Attest _
 4:90 oe<19~
      Nancy J er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of February 1988.