File MW-DEC-86-48


Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 to and
 Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company

 Statement
 of Claim: Claim on behalf of M. A. Mann requesting that he be
 reinstated and paid for time lost as a result of his
 dismissal for excessive absenteeism.

 Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of this case by reason of
 the parties Agreement establishing this Board.
 Claimant, a Laborer on the R-3 Rail Gang which is
 responsible for fitting and replacing rail on the Western
 Region of the Norfolk and Western Railroad, was absent for
 his assignment almost 30% of the work time between April 4,
 1986 and October 29, 1986. His absences were April 4, 18,
 May 8, June 5, 9, 10, 24, 25, 26, July 1, 2, 28, 29, 30, 31,
 August 11, 12, 13, 14,. 18, 19, 20, 21, August 20 reflects
 absence for family problems. Also absent on October 13, 14,
 15, with 16 showing absent for illness, October 20, 21, 22,
 23, 24, 27 and 28, 1986.
 As a result of his absence in October and excessive
 absenteeism since April 4, 1986, the Claimant was charged to
 a formal investigation for being absent for 33 days out of a
 possible 120 days. As a result of the investigation the
 Trainmaster concluded therefrom that Claimant was guilty of
 the charge. He was dismissed from service as discipline
 therefor.
 The Second Division of the NRAB in its Award 10400, in
 denying the claim therein, on an affiliated property, held:

        " ..it should be emphasized that Rule 30 (a), cited by the Organization, has little relevance here because the issue is Claimant's absenteeism and not whether he notified the Carrier of his absence. Prior awards of this Board have often set forth the principle that notification of absence may not be used in defense of an employee's excessive absenteeism. (For example, see Second Division Award 7748, 7803, 8876). Thus, Claimant's excuses some of which were not even offered until the time of the investigation, do not justify his failure to report for work regularly random time. It is beyond Cavil that the obligation is on the employee to protect the Carrier's service on the day he is assigned to work, and failure to do so is sufficient grounds

                                  IOLA I7Go


                        -2- Award No. 92


        for discipline including dismissal. (See this division's award 6701, 8216, 7348.)"


        In the circumstances, this claim will also be similarly denied.


Award: Claim denied.

 ju Pe
 mnons, --Jr ., yee Member . . Mi l e, Car r ember

              J


                  A-ethur T. Van Wart, Chairman and Neutral Member


Issued August 14, 1989.