Brotherhood of Maintenance of VVay )
 Employes Division, ittT Rail Conference )
 vs. ) Case No. 121
 ? Award No. 121
 CSX Transportation, loc. )

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM : "Claim ofthe Sysrent C"oinmittee of the Brotherhood that:





Findings : Public Law Board No. 7 1 63, upon tire whole record and all the evidence, finds that ( i ) the parties to this dispute are Carrier and Ernployes within the meaning ofthe Railway Labor Act as amended, (2) the Board has jurisdiction over this dispute, and (3) the parties to the dispute were acccrrdecf due notice of tire hearing and participated fit this proceeding.

 This claim was timely presented by the Organization and responded to by the Carrier during onproperty processing including conference. I laving addrcssed this claim fit the customary and usual manner. the record established by the parties is now before the Board for adjudication.

 Claimant has six (6) years of service in various job classilications. In 201 1 lie was <t Trackman ()if a two-man (earn with his Foreman that was stationed fit Riverdale, Illinois.

 As of ~trly 23, 201 1 Claimant had curtsutIred all leave available to 111171 tinder the f=amily and lMedfcal Leave Act (M9LA) while caring; for his wife. Claimant infctrined supervisory officers that he would have continuing absences from work rtrtd Ile would notify them when they occurred. Although Claimant asserted a continuingneed tot be dbscrtt from work the Carrier mt'vrmed him drat lie yeas required to work leis assiunitterit but lie w<ruld not be required to work overtime.

t>uring the week ofJuiy 23 through Jtrly 30, 2011, the Carrier denied C(airnant's request for one (1) day of leave and Claimant was absent the other four (4) workdays that week. A supervisor advised Claimant that tire act of ea((ing the Foreman or Roadmaster to inform them lie would be absent did not mean that his absence was approved.

 For August 6 through August 10, 2(t1 1, Claimant was absent for the entire five (S) day workweek. Claimant notes that the Roadmaster replied "okay_ or .`whatever" when Claimant informed him that he would not be at work and that constituted permission to be absent.

 On August 15, 201 I the Carrier charred Claimant with failure to report for work f'br the week of August 6 through August 10, 201 1 and with a '"pattern of absences" fir the weeks of July 23, 201 1 and July .s0, 2011 as he was "absent four days each week[.)" These absences are in violation CSXT Operating Rules - General Rule A and General Regulations CSR- I and show Claimant's failure to protect his assignment.

 < ieneral Rule A states that employees "must knovt and obey rules ...that relate to their ditties" and seek clarification from a supervising officer "when in doubt as to the meaning or instruction of any rule" and General Regulations GR-! stipulates that iin employee "'must report for duty at the designated tithe and place°' and "trust not [bel absent... from duties" without supervisory permission.

 The Carrier states that Claimant was absent from work fur a total of nine (q) workdays; this is not
 contested by the Organization. Notwithstanding Claimant's informing officials he would
 continue to be absent from work, the Carrier clearly comp 1trnicated to Claimant prior to July 23,
 201 1 that he was to work his assignment.

 I'his was reinforced to Claimant when tie was absent 4 days during the week of July 23, 201 1 and <i supervisor advised hint that he could not Continue his absents and contacting the Roadmaster to inform him that lie [Cfairnant] would not be at work was not, in and of itself, permission to be absent. Thereafter Claimant was absent without permission fair 5 workdays (August 6 - I Q, 201 1).

 The 9 absents without permission between July 23 and August 10, 201 1, is substantial evidence that the Carrier met its burden of proof showing Claimant breached (ifZ-1.

 f=or this breach ol'GR-1, the Carrier dismissed the Claimant, A penalty imposed on an employee for an offense is assessed for its reasonable proportionality. In this regard, the primary purpose of discipline imposed with a penalty is to cure and correct the offense rather than being punitive and severe. A penalty increases it) proportion to tile ofterise committed. Some offenses are sufficiently serious to justify dismissal as the initial disciplinary response. lit that situation, the dismissal is proportional for a "capital" offense that renders the employment relationship untenable. Dismissal is also proportional as the final step under progressive discipline when lesser measures have not corrected the recurring offense. III that context the employee has not corrected his ofknses and demonstrates a lack <>f rehabilitation.

 Iii this case, the Carrier established that Claimant was absent without permission in violation of CSR- I : however, tile Carrier did not establish this violatimn as ii "capital"' offense, or demonstrate that sutfciettt lesser measures were deployed and Claimant failed to respond to those measures with corrective action Under these circumstances, [lie penalty ol'dismissal is not proportional to the Cirettni5tanCes of this case, Or the Claimant's prior dit,ciplinary history.
 PLB NO. 7163 AWARD 121

 As a result, the dismissal will be reduced to a ls:rtpthy suspension, and tile: Claimant shall be reinstated; however. backpay will not be awarded its this case,

 Award: Claim denied on the offense but the penalty is modified and the remedy is granted in accordance with the findings.

 Carrier Member
 Robert A. 1'~tszta

 Dated this ~_4 ~ day of

 Patrick 1. 1 falter
 Neutral Member

 P(,t3 No. 7163 Case too. 12!

 CJreanizati<>n kfieorber Peter E. Kennedy