Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29011
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. TD-29470
 91-3-90-3-493
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Carol J. Zamperini when award was rendered.

 (American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:


Appeal of 15 days suspension assessed Power Director J. E. Meehan, 11/3/89



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.

As discussed on the property during the appeals, the following facts are in evidence:

 After returning to service as a Power Director on October 3, 1988, the Claimant was absent on thirteen days between then and December 5, 1988. At that time, the Claimant was issued a letter of warning for his lack of attendance. He was told hi 1989, the Carrier felt his attendance was still not within acceptable standards and he was again for discipline.

 The Claimant's absenteeism continued. A, a result, he was assessed a 10 day deferred suspension on April 7, 1989. Following an appeal by the Organization, the discipline was reduced to a reprimand. From that point until October 18, 1989, the Claimant reported off duty on thirteen occasions for a total of forty days. He was issued a Notice of Investigation dated October 18, 1989, wherein he was charged with:
 Form 1 Award No. 29011
 Page 2 Docket No. TD-29470
 91-3-90-3-493
 "Violation of Amtrak's Rules of Conduct, Rule "0",
 that portion that reads: 'Employees must report for
 duty at the designated time and place and must at
 tend to their duties during assigned working hours.
 Employees must not be absent from their assigned
 duty . . .without the permission of their super
 visor. . .'.
 In that you failed to report to duty on June 13,
 14, 21, July 1, 5, 15, 19, 25, 26, 29, August 1, 2,
 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, September 2, 3,
 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 23, 26, 27,
 October 4, 8 and 10, 1989. In consideration of
 your previous attendance record, the above absences
 constitute excessive absenteeism."

By letter dated November 3, 1989, the Carrier advised the Claimant the evidence substantiated his guilt. According to the letter it also took into consideration his previous disciplinary record and issued a fifteen calendar day suspension.

On March 5, 1990, the Claimant received another Notice of Investigation. He was directed to atte









The Hearing was postponed until March 30, 1990. On April 6, 1990, the Claimant was notified of the Carrier's decision to dismiss him based on excessive absenteeism.
 Form 1 Award No. 29011
 Page 3 Docket No. TD-29470
 91-3-90-3-493


not be considered excessive absenteeism. Besides, Rule 0 controls employees who
 are scheduled to report to work and the performance of their duties during their
 scheduled work hours. The Claimant reported off duty on each occurrence of
 absence and he reported to the appropriate person. On none of these instances
 was his absence challenged.

 In addition, the Organization argues that Claimant was never forewarned that absences due to bona fide illnesses were violations of Rule 0. He has never been disciplined for tardiness. He has always reported to his designated area of assignment, he does his work as directed and he does not leave his assignment. Therefore, he is not in violation of Rule 0.

 The Carrier contends the evidence supports the discipline issued to the Claimant and that he was excessively absent. He was given numerous opportunities to improve his atte absent a total of 81 days in 1988, 65 days in 1989, and during the first three months of 1990, he was absent on 9 occasions for a total of twenty days. Many of these absences were in conjunction with the Claimant's rest days, which demonstrates a pattern of sick leave abuse.

 The Carrier futher argues it is well established in labor relations that employers have every right to expect reasonable attendance from their employees. Excessive absenteeism, whether for legitimate illnesses or for other reasons, causes an extra burden on other employees, as well as a disruption of productivity. If an employer is to run its business in an orderly, efficent and profitable manner, its employees must meet their employment obligations, one of which is to attend work regularly.

 In the instant case, the Carrier points out that the Claimant has demonstrated either an unwillingness or an inability to improve his irregular attendance. In 1989 alone, he had an absentee rate of 40% and was heading for similar statistics during the first two months of 1990, when he was absent on 15 out of a possible 43 work-days, a 35% absentee rate.

 We conclude that even though the Claimant complied with the procedures for calling in to report his absences, this fact does not negate the Claimant's excessive absenteeism. Furthermore, despite the Organization's urging, the fact that there is a sick leave benefit in place, does not give an employee an automatic right to utilize every day he has available under such a program regardless of the circumstances. The sick leave benefit is designed to provide employees with some financial protection; it is not meant to be a guideline to determine whether or not an employee is excessively absent. Likewise, it is not relevant that the Claimant was paid for.some of the days on which he was absent.

 Everyone recognizes there are long term illnesses or disabilities which require lengthy absences. In those circumstances, employees should be given the benefit of the doubt. However, when an employee attends work sporadically based on a myriad of reasons, he diminishes his value as an employee. The employer is justified in removing him from its employment and replacing him with a more productive employee.
 Form 1 Award No. 29011
 Page 4 Docket No. TD-29470
 91-3-90-3-493
 This Board believes the Carrier appropriately counseled the Claimant
 and gave him every opportunity to improve his attendance. It was to no avail.
 The fifteen (15) day suspension and the eventual dismissal were justified.






Attest:
        ancy J. -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this, 24th day of September 1991.