Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27079
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27204
 88-3-86-3-278
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Edwin A. Benn 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 dismissal of Section Laborer T. Swinton for alleged failure to protect his assignment on May 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, 1985 and for alleged violation of Maintenance of Way Bulletin Nos. 15 and 25 was unwarranted and without just and
(2) The claimant's personal record shall be cleared of the charges leveled against him, he shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired 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.

By letter dated May 31, 1985, Claimant, a Section Laborer-Truck Driver and an employee since September 1979, was charged with failing to protect his assignment on May 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, 1985. After investigation held on Ju dismissed from service.

 By letter dated January 25, 1985, Claimant had been assessed a 120 day suspension "effective January 26, 1985 and ending May 25, 1985" for failing to protect his assig on the dates listed in the charge. On May 31, 1985, Claimant called the Superintendent of Maintenanc Form 1 Award No. 27079
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27204
 88-3-86-3-278

 house and advised Claimant that he was supposed to be back at work. Claimant told the Carrier Officer that he received no notification that he was supposed to come back. The Carrier officer informed Claimant that the notification was in the original disciplinary notice. The record shows that on January 29, 1985, Claimant received and .signed for the January 25, 1985, notification of the 120 day suspension.

 Aside from the 120 day suspension of January 25, 1985, for failing to protect his assignment, Claimant's disciplinary record showed letters of warning dated July 2 a thirty day deferred suspension dated February 18, 1983, for failing to protect his assig for failing to protect his assignment and a ninety day actual suspension dated April 6, 1984, for being absent without authority.
The record therefore clearly establishes that Claimant was notified that he was to return to work after the completion of his 120 day suspension which ended on May 25, 1985, and nevertheless Claimant failed to protect his assignment on the dates alleged in the charge. Substantial evidence in the record therefore supports the Carrier's conclusion that Claimant violated Maintenance of Way Bulletin No. 25 which requires employees to call the Roadmaster's office and receive permission if they are going to lay off. Claimant's assertion that he did not think that he had an assignment and that he was terminated are refuted by the clear language of the January 25, 1985, suspension notice that instructed him that his suspension was for 120 days and was over on May 25, 1985. In light of Claimant's extensive record for the same kind of misconduct, we are unable to conclude that the Carrier's imposition of dismissal was ei We shall therefore deny the Claim.





                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: i
 Nancy J. ver - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of May 1988.