NjWL PLATE _LAKE ERIE AND WESTF~

AND CLOVER LEAF DISTRICTS






                      Case No. c~ 3


PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

      Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees vs Norfolk and Western Railway Company


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

      1. The carrier violated the effective Agreement dated February 1, 1951, on November 17, 1977, when it dismissed claimant Kent R .-Nason from service.


      2. The dismissal of the claimant was arbitrary and capricious. The carrier did not exercise discretion and-fair judgment. The claimant now be restored to service with seniority and benefits unimpaired and payment allowed for the assigned workirg 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 the 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:

      Claimant was hired April 8, 1976; at the time of his dis-


missal he was classified as a Machine Operator. From the period

 of July through September 21, 1977, the grievant was absent eleven
                                            Awd. l#43 - 1837


(11) days. According to the Carrier the grievant was sent four- letters -- on September 12, 13, 15 and 27, 1977--warning of potential discipline for-such actions; according to the- grievant he.received all such lettexTon or about September 23, 197T: The-grievant contends he was absent because of illness one dap in August. and five days in- September, but indicated at the hearing tbat he produced no proof in that regard. . (The Claimant identified-other absences-as, having been in jail two days and is court three others-)
 According to the Organization,, the Claimant's immediate. supervisor admitted knowledge of his whereabouts on the dates of: absence; however, the record of the hearing. indicates that while such afficial affirmed the CTaimantbad advised him as much, he= had produced no proof or verification of his whereabouts on anZ of the dates of absence. The Organization also asserts error in the manner by which the hearing was conducted.
 Employees owe a basic duty to be available for work consistently and timely. When they cannot, they are obliged to produce proof which mayor may not establish a, basis for their non-availability, depending on the circumstances. We take note of the Organization's complaint that the Claimant received all letters on the same day and that three of the letters were dispatched only a day apart. While we would remind the Carrier that

such notices should be sent timely to absences involved, we do'

_ 2_

Awd. #43 - 1837

 not consider such circumstance as excusing the,Claimant

 for his excessive absenteeism.

 In sum, we find insufficient error as asserted by the Organization to disturb the Carrier's actions in this case.

 AWARD:

      Claim is denied.


G. C. Edwards
 Carrier Member

 ,3 es F. Scearce `Pteutral Member

 - ~-A-04-t 4. ~K,,
- ~~T r-&ej &-~
 W. E. LaRue
 Organization Member

 Dated a1~1tL~;:-`'^Dr this ~ day of