Award No. 64
 Case No. 64
 Carrier File Hrrl-BL-80-70
 Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 to and
 Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company

 Statement The dismissal of B. E. Franklin, Painter on Force No. 2 idea
 of River District, was without just and sufficient cause, and
 Claim wholly disproportionate to the alleged offense.
 The Brotherhood requests that Cl aimant Franklin be restored
 to service with all rights unimpaired, and compensated for
 all time lost because of his dismissal since September 2.5,
 1980.

Findings The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated March 1, 1976, that it' has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing held.

Claimant Franklin entered Carrier's service in April of 1980. in September 1980, Claimant was working as a painter on Paint Force No. 2, under the general supervision of J. R. Shaver, Supervisor, Bridges and Buildings.

On September 25, 1980 Claimant was dismissed from Carrier's service.

Pursuant to Bile 33 of the applicable schedule, Claimant's representatives requested a forrmal investigation which was held or October 20, 1980, and as a result thereof the dismissal was upheld. _





The record before us consisted of the testimony of several witnesses called by Carrier which set forth testimony indicating that since April of 1980 when Claimant began his employment with Carrier had been consistently late on fourteen or fifteen occasions, often nc= reporting at all. During that period of time and up to the point of his dismissal on .September 25, 1980; Claimant was given repeated counselling and warnings concerning his tardiness, absences without permission, and, was also disciplined by a thirty (30) day actual suspension. Tmrediately after returning to work from a thirty (30) day suspension 1M failed to show up for work at ail, and failed to notify Carrier in - accordance with the rules.
 Claimant testified that on sane occasions Carrier's records
 reflected that he was late, and/or absent, but he had, in fact, show
 up at the job site, but because he was there after the Supervisor had
 left he was not shown to be at the work site. Additionally, Clainrn t
 advised that because of transportation problems sometimes he wr-~:
 required to utilize public transit, and other times, because of vehicle
 problems, he was not able to get to work on tire. Further, Claimant
 advised the Board that during that period of time because of t;=
 distance between his home and the work site, the unreliability of public
 transit, his financial inability to be able to purchase adequatc,
 Page 3 Award ^:o. 8¢-E$3a
 reliable transportation., all combined put him in a position where he wa=
 not able to perform in a manner. t--liat he would have liked to.

The Board concludes from the transcript that all prccedural requirements were fairly met. Claimant was appraised of the charges - against him, had his opportunity to testify on his own behalf, call. witnesses, if any, on his behalf. There exists within the record sufficient, credible testimony to substantiate the charges made. Carrier manifested no abuse of its discretionary right to levy the ultimate penalty for an employee of such short duration who manifests such a totally unacceptable employment record. Despite repeated warnings, despite counselling, despite a thirty (30) day suspension for excessive tardiness and absences without permission, Claimant still persisted in an undesirable employment habit.

There exists no cause within the record to permit the Board to change the discipline assessed. The Railroad Industry, perhaps rnre than any other industry, is a paramilitary-type organization. Carrier of necessity mast rely upon the integrity of its employees to faithfull:discharge their duties. In the instant claim Claimant demonstrated a totally unacceptable employment trait. However understandable this trait may be, due to Claimant's lack of prior railroad experience and the shortness of his employment history, that employment trait remains an unacceptable one.

However, this Award should not stand in the way of Carrier reconsidering Claimant for reemployment. The matter of Claimant's restoration to service on a leniency basis is wholly within the discretionary authority of Carrier, and is not a proper function of the



Board. There-'ore, on ,:.he record be=ore us, we are 'filled to con·-iuc:-

 that the claim must bo denied:

 AWARD: Claim denied.

 A. D. Arnett, Employee Member E. N. Jac Jr. , Carr r Member

                      Issued at Salem, :dew Jersey, May 3, 1952.