PARTIES) THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE MILWAY C01'IPANY
 TO )
 DISPUTE) BROTHEP.110OD OF RAIIDITENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims on behalf of former Plains Division
 Trackman L. K: Pi kert as follows:'

 (1) Claim for removal of letter of reprimand assessed his personal
 record as a result of formal investigation held in Lubbock, Texas,
 July 26, 1979.

 (2) Claim for reinstatement to his former position with seniority,
 vacation and all other rights unimpaired and compensation for wage
 loss coiiumencin I; September 1, 1979, continuing forward until lie is
 restored to service.

 FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 1582 finds that the parties Lerein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 Iii this dispute the claimant was notified to attend a formal investigation for his allegedly being absent without authority on June 12, 1979. Pursuant to the investigation the claimant was issued a reprimand after being found guilty.

 On August 14, 1979 the claimant was notified to attend a formal investigation to determine the facts and place the responsibility for his allegedly being absent without authority August 7, 8, 10 and 11, 1979. Pursuant to the investigation the Carrier found the claimant guilty of violating Rule 15 of the General Rules for the Guidance of Employees, and the claimant was notified his record was assessed with 20 demerits.

 Thereafter the claimant was advised that he had a balance of 60 demerits and that his seniority and employment were terminated as o1 August 31, 1979 due to an accumulation of excessive demerit:,.

 In regard to the first charge which resulted in a reprimand, the claimant admitted he did not have authority to be absent. While a written reprimand limits the time in which an employee can work off demerits, the Carrier had sufficient facts regarding this incident to issue such a letter. Under the circumstances the Board has no justification to overrule the decision of the Carrier regarding the reprimand.


The Organization also points up that his foreman was absent the same day as the claimant, but the evidence also reveals that the foreman is no longer an employee either, since he was also discharged for excessive absenteeism.

 In regard to the second claim, the claimant was asked:

              Question: "Were you absent from work August 7, S, 10 and 11, 1979?"


      Answer: "Yes, Sir." ' ,


      Question: "Did you have permission to be absent?"


      Answer: "No, Sir."

      t


The claimant did testify that he had permission to be off one day, August 9, 1979.

 Evidence is sufficient to establish that the claimant was absent without authority, and 20 demerits for such absence is not unreasonable. Those 20 demerits left the claimant's record standing with 75 demerits, and the Board has no authority to reinstate the claimant.

 AWARD: Claim No. 1 denied.
        Claim No. 2 denied.


                            !Prestonre, C; airman


                            Organiza ion Member


                            A

                            Carries Mem er


Dated August 19, 1980