File MW-DEC-86-49


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

 Statement
 of Claim: Claim on behalf of M. T. Pollard requesting that he be
 reinstated and paid for time lost as a result for being
 absent without permission and excessive absenteeism.

 Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of this case by reason of
 the parties Agreement establishing this Board.
 Claimant Laborer was regularly assigned to the R-3 Rail
 Gang from May 7, 1986 to November 13, 1986. During that
 period he missed work on his gang on the following dates May
 7, 19, June 4, 9, 25 (he was shown as sick), July 1, 2, 10,
 24, 28 (reflected car trouble), August 4, 12 (he was late),
 August 21 missed 5 1/2 hours, August 25 worked 8 1/2 hours,
 September 15, 16 (shown as sick), September 17, 18, 29
 (shown as car trouble), September 30, October 6, 21 (worked
 four hours and left sick), October 22, 23, 27, November 10
 and 11.
 The above absences account for 21% of the available
 work hours during his work period. He had been counseled .
 and warned on several occasions that further absences would
 not be tolerated. As a result of his absence without
 permission on October 22, 23 and 27 and excessive
 absenteeism May 7 the Claimant was notified to attend a
 formal investigation to determine his responsibility for
 being absent 22 out of a possible 136 days. As a result of
 that investigation, Carrier concluded therefrom that
 Claimant was guilty. He was dismissed from service as
 discipline therefor.
 Claimant admitted to being absent without permission on
 the days cited above. Consequently, there was sufficient
 evidence adduced to support Carrier's conclusion, including
 the Claimant's admissions, that he had been absent
 excessively. Calling in on four of 22 days of absence does
 not constitute a compliance with Rule 24. In any event the
 Claimant was being cited for absenteeism and not whether he
 had notified the Carrier of his absence.
 Claimant's record indicates an absence of interest in
 his job. His failure to protect his assignment and/or to
 give notice thereof impacts.on the Carrier's operations,
                                    ~°G'6 /7Go


                          -2- Award No. 93


particularly when he is a member of the System Rail Gang.
 His failures violates the implicit promise and the
 obligation contained in the employer and employee
 relationship. This Board finds no cause to change the
 discipline herein. This claim will be denied.
 Award: Claim denied.

 S. . Harrmons, Jr., yee Member .,' Miller, C r Member

Arthur .Van Wart, Chairman

and Neutral Member


Issued August 30, 1989.