(MW-MUN-77-46) (MW-MUN-77-47) (MW-MUN-77-48) (MW-MUN-77-49) Case No. I PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees vs Norfolk and Western Railway Company STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

2. The claimants be restored to service with seniority and all rights unimpaired and payment allowed for the assigned working hours actually lost, less any earnings in the service of the Company. FINDINGS:
The carrier and the employee involved in this dispute are res
 pectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway
 Labor Act, as amended.
 This Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 OPINION:
 The Claims herein were combined by the Organization for
 handling before this Board. While the Carrier uniformly objected
 to the combining of such claims during handling on the property,
 such procedural objection was waived by the Carrier Member at the
 Awd. a
 time of this Bo 's convening.

 The record shows that the Claimants in this case -T. L. Jordan (-46), A. D. Stratton (-47), W. L. Waugbfi6ld. (-48), and U: Dockery, Jr. (-49) were, short
 service employees with as little as two months to no more.
 than eleven montbs with the Carrier at the time of their re
 movaL... They. were each- assigned as Extra Gang Laborers to the
 "R-2 Rail Force." The work of this crew was such that camp
 cars. were assigned,and thus the Claimants could. have had bed
 and board at the. site of the work to be performed; they chose,
 instead, to drive to and.. from their private residences. In so
 doing, they either did not report at all or reported for work
 beyond their assigned starting. time and were sent home -- for -
 which they were. marked absent for from- 11 to 16 days in a period
 from March 14-, 197,? (whentthey-~were each recalled to work from
 furloughs) to April 27,. L977 -- about one month. The record
 indicates-that: certain such absences were.ascribed to health
 problems, for which no.accep.table medical excuse was tendered,
 or automobile problem
 We find no basis= to take exception to the Carrier's decision to hold the Claimants responsible for their nonavailability-for work ixi,a timely manner or not at all. These are, after a11, new employees,wha chose not to-accept the option of camp car living; in so doing, they- assumed the. unilateral
 responsibility to be at work on time and regularly. The record
 _2_

demonstrates they did neither, failed to furnish proof of the bases for their absence and, additionally, did not see fit to give some notice of their inability to report. Considering the number of absences or tardies involved and the short tenure of the Claimants, the Carrier's action is eminently reasonable.
 The Organization also asserts procedural errors in the conduct of the hearings which were held. for each of the Claimants, in that the charging officer was also the hearing officer. We find no basis on the record to suggest that the Claimants were denied due process as a result of -this fact..
 We find no reason to disturb the Carrier's actions or to mitigate the action. AWARD:

                .1 ~


                  James F.. Scearce

                  Neutral Member


    `s.

G. C. Edwards W. E. LaRue
 Carrier Member Organization Member
 Dated at this l2- day of :.l'LL~ , 1980

                            -3-