A . u f








        Norfolk and Western Railway Company STATEMENT OF CLAIM:


        1. Carrier violated the effective Agreement dated April 1, 1951, on September 19, 1975, by unfairly and unjustly dismissing Charles T. Tolliver, Jr. from service.


        2.~ Claimant Chsrles T. Tolliver shall be reinstated to Carrier's service, compensated for all wages lost, and have all seniority and other rights returned unimpaired.


                  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. OPINION:

        During the period of February through August, 1975, the attendance record for the Claimant indicates he was absent some 26 1/2 days at different times and according to the Carrier, without production of an acceptable excuse. The Organization asserts medical excuse was proffered for some such absences and that those remaining do.not constitute a basis for discharge. The Organization also objects to the Carrier producing the~Claimant's prior absenteeism record during the investigation and hearing, and, thus, asserts a procedural error on the part of the Carrier.

The burden must rest on the Organization trove its affirma
 tive defense that excuses were proffered, since the Carrier can
 hardly demonstrate the contrary by production of proof. that .
 no such excuses were forthcoming. In point of fact, a review
 of the Claimant's testimony is, at best, equivocal on this
 point and more emphatically indicates that the Claimant had a
 bad habit of "oversleeping." On balance, we must conclude that
 the Claimant was inattentive to his employment obligation and -
 was sufficiently warned during the period cited that he was on
 treacherous ground, insofar as being an acceptable employee.
 We concur that the Carrier committed a "technical error" in its
 execution of the hearing by permitting introduction of the
 Claimant's prior disciplinary record in conjunction with the
 charge for which he was being investigated. We do not consider
 this fatal to the Carrier's case, however, and we affirm the
 Carrier's right to take any such prior record under review and
 consideration when determining the extent of discipline it
 intends to impose. It is the Carrier's right to be apprised
 of an employee's work availability in a timely manner that will
 permit it to make alternative plans for a full work force. The
 record here is-manifest that such notice by the Claimant was
 not forthcoming. We are mindful that the Claimant had five
 years service at the time of his removal, and while long service
 might arguably be a basis for a Carrier to mitigate an other wise

                        2

unacceptable recoo, we shall not disturb thfCarrier's action

 in this case. We conclude that the Agreement was not violated.

 AWARD:

 Claim is denied.

 G. C. Edwards
 Carrier Member

 I'
 mes F. Scearce
 utral Member

 Fred Wurpel, Jr.
 Organization Memb6r

 Dated this Ln+day of
/i-w D - ) - / i~ 2 ~