Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27078
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27173
 88-3-86-3-242
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referae Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood if Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Sio Line Railroad Company (formerly Chicago, Milwaukee, (St. Paul acid Pacific Railroad Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim if the System Committee of the Britherhood that:

 (1) The dismissal of Extra Gang Laborer A. Belmont for alleged 'failure to protect your assignment ... and for your failure to notify your immediate supervisor on November 12, 1984' was unwarranted and without just and sufficient cause (System File C 1115-85/D-2678).

 (2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, his record 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.

Claimant, an employee with a seniority date of May 5, 1981, was employed by the Carrier as an Extra Gang Laborer at the Carrier's Bensenville Yard. By letter dated November 12, 1984, Claimant was dismissed from service for failure to protect his assignment and failure to notify his supervisor. Hearing was held on December 7, 1984, and by letter dated December 12, 1984, the dismissal was upheld.

 Claimant began working under Roadmaster A. R. Bobby on October 16, 1984, after exercising his rights under Rule 8(c). on October 17, 1984, Bobby spoke to Claimant and advised Claimant of the importance of being at work every day. Bobby further reminded Claimant to follow the prescribed rules to make sure that he calls when he cannot come in. Claimant indicated that he
 Form 1 Award No. 27078
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27173
 88-3-86-3-242
was aware of the proper pricedure for calling to mark off. The procedure is for the employee to call the Foreman and if no response is obtained, the employee is to call Timekeeper G. Phillips. According to Phillips, Claimant has utilized that procedure in the past and has called him personally. Babb v testified that he spike t.) Claimant in October 17, 1984, because Claimant was fifteen minutes late on the first day of his assignment under Bibby and Bahby knew Claimant befire frim w.,rkino in his territory.

 Claimant's rest Javs were Saturday and Sunday. On Sunday, November 11, 1984, Claimant brike his ankle while jigging. Claimant was scheduled to work on November 12, 1984, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and did not report at his starting time. Claimant testified that he was staying at a friend's house and tried to call the Foreman's shanty between 6:00 and 6:15 a.m. but received no answer. Claimant further testified that he was under medication for pain and went back to sleep and tried to call again between 9:00 and 9:30 a.m., again without success. According to Claimant, "I didn't have Mr. Glen Phillip's [sic] number at the moment at that time because I stayed out in Chicago that day, out at a friends (sic) house." Claimant further testified that he did not try to call directory assistance to obtain Phillips' phone number.
Between 1:30 and 2:00 p.m. Claimant came to the Yard walking on crutches. Claimant gave Phillips a medical slip concerning a previously suffered injury to his finger (which was also broken) and inquired about the procedure for obtaining a leave of absence due to the new injury to his ankle. Claimant informed Phillips that he spent a good deal of time at an emergency room due to the injury to his ankle. Claimant was then informed of his dismissal by a letter from Bo
Claimant's prior disciplinary record shows a five day suspension on August 4, 1982, for failing to protect his assignment; a warning dated November 9, 1982, for absenting himself from his assignment; a letter of reprimand dated July 9, 1984, for failing to protect his assignment; another letter concerning tardiness and a seven day suspension on October 3, 1984, for failing to protect his assignment.
First, we are unable to consider the organization's argument concerning an alleged procedural decision after the hearing by someone other than the hearing officer. That argument was not raised on the property.
Second, with respect to the merits, we find substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Carrier's conclusion that Claimant failed to protect his assignment as charged and failed to notify supervision. Claimant was well aware of th that procedure. Under the circumstances, the fact that Claimant did not have the Timekeeper's phone number with him does not change the result since Claimant made no effort to o fact that Claimant has been disciplined in the past on several occasions for
 Form 1 Award No. 27078
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-27173
 88-3-86-3-242

 the same misconduct, Claimant should have known how to call the appropriate authority. In light if Claimant's past discipline and further cinsidering that Claimant was reminded by Bibby a few weeks prior to the incident of the need to be at work or call in if he was unable to come to work, we are unable to conclude that the impisitiin if dismissal was either excessive, arbitrary, capricious or aii abuse if ,!is^retion. We must therefore deny the Claim.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J. D ;K- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of May 1988.