PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

        1. The carrier violated the effective Agreement dated Februrary 1, 1951, by unfairly and unjustly dismissing claimant M. T. Brown.


        2. The claimant 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:

        This Board upon the whole record and all the evidence finds that:


The Carrier and employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.

 This Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 OPINION:
 According to the record presented, the Claimant was an
 Extra Gang Laborer assigned to the "R-2 Rail Gang" at the time
 of events germane to this dispute. Per the Carrier, he was ab
 sent on April 13, 14, 22 and 25, 1977 without prior approval or
 proper authority. A hearing was originally scheduled for May 6,

 1977, but was postponed until May 19, 1977.Documentation affirmed
 r~cva~. a9- ~

 that the Claimant was properly apprised of the rescheduling; however, he failed to appear without informing either the Organization or the Carrier of his whereabouts'. The Organization's- request for a postponement being denied- by the hearing offiver, the investigation ensued. The Claimant's removal was the result. After such events took place, the Claimant asserted he sustained a. "head injury" on May 18,. L977 and thus was not able: to. attend the: bearing; a doctor's. statement was effered in that regard stating.: _. .

      "Cthe Claimant] has. been under .my care from 19 May to

      24. May and is able to return- ta:scbool/work on


      "Remarks:. Under Dr. &atkins care at the time of iniury."


      Signed Dr. CLIlezibLel Dated JuIy 11. 1977


        (No.te<: Underlined~portions.handwritten, otherwise. a printed form)

Also: proferred after-the-fact were statements. by associates of the. Claimant outlining various reasons for his inability (as-well. as theirs) to be- able to get to work on the dates in

                        H


question- The Carrier rejected all such offerings.
 The<Organization asserts the Calimant was denied his rights to a fair hearing and that the Claimant submitted sufficient proof - of his inability to report per the doctor's statement and other documents. The Organization asserts disparity of treatment of the Claimant vis a vis other employees absent on the sane dates

                            -2-

                                            ,gu,d. a9- ~~-~7


but who drew no such penalty, pointing out that they rode together.
 As to the Organization's claim of disparity, this Board has before it only the record of the Claimant; we cannot divine the status of the other employees who also may have been absent at this time but are obliged, instead, to assess the case as t' put before us. We note that he had camp cars available to him which would have ensured his presence near the work site; when an employee choses to arrange his own living quarters in lieu thereof, he also bears the burden to be at work on time. We find merit to the Carrier's disdain for the Claimant's proffer of a medical excuse -- well after the fact -- and certainly without any reasonable detail to aflirm his claim of incapacity so severe as to render him unable to advise the Carrier of his whereabouts.
 In sum, we find no basis to disturb the Claimant's removal. AWARD:

        Claim is denied.

        1


            3ame~ F. Scearce, Neutral Member


            ^~ -7eA

. a ~. ..
 G. C. Edwards, Carrier Member W. E. LaRue, Organization Member

 Dated at U r ~ J _4Ll (~r~ this .- day of i ~~,
 I
 -3-