PARTIES). TtiE.ATCHISON. TOPEKA.AND SA19TA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
 TO )
 DISPUTE) BROTHEIili00i) OF MAINTENACE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

 STATEMENT OF CLAIIA: That the. Carrier's decision to remove Valley Division. raccman George Perez from services was unjust.

 2. That the Carrier now reinstate claimant George Perez with seniority, vacation, all benefit rights uuimpaired and pay for all wage loss as a result of investigation held August 26, 1983 continuing forward axis/or otherwise wade whole, because the Carrier did uuL introduce substantial, creditable evidence that proved that thealaimant violated the rules enumerated in their decision, and even if claimant violated t:Le rules enumerated in the decision, permanent dismissal from service is extreme and harsh discipline under the circumstauces.

 FINDINGS: T:iis fubLic :.3.r Boarc4 11o. 1.)-j* firss that the parties
 ere In are Carrier an"' ruiployee witain the c:eaning of the Railway
 Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In this.. dispute tile claiwant was charged with being absent from duty without proper- authority ~an -August Iii. and 19, 1983. An investigation was held in Fresno, California on August 26, 1983. and pursuant thereto the claimant was found guilty and dismissed from the service of the Carrier.

 The Assistant Roadaaster testified that the claimant failed to report for work on August 18 and 19 and further failed to call and advise that he would not report for work. The Chief Clerk and the Division Engineer testified that the claimant had a telephone call. on August 17, and the claimant left work without checking with his foreman.

 The Chief Clerk.testified that she called the phone number regard-
 nJ=n
rmation,regardinc, the claimant. She left word for clai.-nant to call the office and advise if there was an emergency, and if so, the nature of the emergency. She testified that later in tae day she again called the same. number and received no further information.

 The Roadmaster's Clerk testified that on hugust 18 a man called identifying himself as the claimant's brother-in-law who stated that the claimant would not be at work that day. She further testified that the claimant called on the afternoon of August 19



and stated that he wanted to come in and attempt to clear himself. She testified there was no telephone call an the 18th from the claimant or his brother-in-law.

 The ct.aimant testified that on August 13 he was attempting to get

 his wife out of jail anti for that reason had no time to call. Hefur ther testified that his young daughter became ill and he took Ler to the doctor`s office and did not call into the office until isugust 19 when he called the Roadmaster's Clerk and advised her that he would like to speak to the Roadmaster personally and explain the matter. The claimant testified that he spent from 7:00 in the morning until 1:00 p:..m. "running around trying to find a lawyer." (Page 14 of the transcript)
The claimant's brother-in-law testified that he called on August 18 advising that the claimant would not be able to report to work.

 The Board has examined the entire transcript of record and all of the evidence presented. :Lt appears that the claimant obviously had ample opportunity to call the Carrier and report the nature of his problems and advise that he would be unable to work. The claimant failed to do so, and for that reason serious discipline is justified.

 However, under all of the circumstances herein it is the opinion of the. Board that permanent dismissal is too severe. The Carrier is directed to reinstate the claimant with seniority and all other rights unimpaired but without gay for time lost.

 AWARD: Claim sustained as per above.

 ORDER: The Carrier is directed to comply with this award within ti rty days from the date of this award.

- ~~jZ-~ Q~Ch~rman

                              rganization Member


                            Cvrriav Member


Dated at Chicaco, Illinois October 27, 1983