Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28553
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-28997
 90-3-89-3-431
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee James E. Mason when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company



(a) Carrier violated the provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement at Kansas City, Kansas, on July 28, 1988, when it wrongfully assessed the personal record of Ms. C.
(b) The Carrier shall now remove the twenty (20) demerits and any reference to the formal investigation held on July 28, 1988, from the personal record file of Ms. C. M. Reid, as a result of such violation of Agreement rules.

 CLAIM NO. 2:

 (a) Carrier violated the provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement at Kansas City, Kansas, on August 5, 1988, when it wrongfully assessed the personal record of Ms. C.
(b) The Carrier shall now remove the thirty (30) demerits and any reference to the formal investigation held on August 5, 1988, from the personal record of Ms. C. M. rules.

 CLAIM NO. 3:

 (a) Carrier violated the rules of the current Clerks' Agreement at Kansas City, Kansas, when it removed Ms. C. M. Reid from service as a result of a formal investigation held on August 5, 1988; and

 (b) Ms. C. M. Reid shall now be returned to Carrier service and paid for all loss of wages and benefits commencing on or about August 5, 1988, as a result of such violation of Agreement rules.

 In accordance with Circular No. 1 of October 10, 1934, as amended, which was issued by the Board, the claims presented have been combined into one submission. of the investigations on July 28, and August 5, 1988; Claim No. 3 protests the discharge of Ms. C. M. Reid on August 5, 1988."
 Form 1 Award No. 28553
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-28997
 90-3-89-3-431
 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.

This Docket concerns three separate actions of discipline involving the same Claimant. These three actions were taken separately during the on-property handling of these matters and have been combi^,' into one presentation to this Board. Th actions.

 The first action involves the assessment of twenty (20) demerits against Claimant's record. This assessment was the decision following a Hearing which was held on July 28, 1988, at which the Claimant was found to be in violation of Rule 1004, Safety and General Rules for All Employees in that she absented herself from her assignment without authority between 2:37 A.M. and 3:33 A.M. on July 3, 1988.

 The second action involves the assessment of thirty (30) demerits against Claimant's record. This assessment was the decision of a Hearing which was held on August 5, 1988, at which the Claimant was found to be in violation of Rules A, 100 in that she, without authority, absented herself from Position 6018 on July 28, 1988.

 The third action involves the removal of the Claimant from service. This assessment was the decision of a Hearing which was held on August 5, 1988, at which the Claimant was found to be in violation of Rule 1028(h), Safety and General Rules for All Employees in that she had accumulated an excessive number of demerits.

 Copies of the separate transcripts of Hearings held in connection with these three actions have been made a part of the record in this Docket. We have examined each of the Hearing records and conclude that each was conducted in a proper manner Claimant is entitled under the provisions of the negotiated Rules Agreement have been honored.
 Form 1 Award No. 28553
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-28997
 90-3-89-3-431
 There is in effect on this property Rule 1028 which reads, in per-
 tinent part, as follows:



An examination of the records in this Docket reveals that prior to the initiation of actions No. 1 and No. 2, Claimant's record contained a total of fifty (50) demerits. It is apparent, therefore, that if this Board supports the assessment of dem supra, the Claimant will be in excess of the allowed balance of demerits as set forth in Rule 1028(h).

 The Board has first examined the Hearing record of the action which resulted in the greater number of demerits, _i.e., action No. 2. We find that substantial evidence was adduced at the Hearing which was held on August 5, 1988, in support of the charge of violation of Rules A, 1004 and 1007 concerning Claimant's failure imposition of thirty (30) demerits for this proven violation was not arbitrary or in bad faith. This was not the first instance of discipline for failure to protect an assignment. Carrier was entirely within its rights in considering these prior assessments of demerits when arriving at the decision to assess thirty (30) demerits in this instance. The appeal from action No. 2 is, therefore, denied.

 The denial of the appeal in connection with action No. 2 causes the assessment of demerits in action No. 1 to become moot. Therefore, we offer no further opinion on that action.

 The Hearing in connection with action No. 3 was properly conducted and is conclusive. The provisions of Rule 1028(h) are clear and concise. The Claimant had more than sixty (60) demerits outstanding against her record. Carrier's action in terminating the Claimant was not an arbitrary or capricious act. The propriety a been recognized and upheld by this Board on many occasions. We uphold it in this case. The appeal in connection with action No. 3 is also denied.
 Form 1 Award No. 28553
 Page 4 Docket No. CL-28997
 90-3-89-3-431




                          By Order of Third Division


                  01


Attest:
      ~'dncy J r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of September 1400