Statanent Claim on behalf of T. L. Hager account his dismissal from of service as a result of an investigation held on July 17, 1981. Claim

Findings: The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, finds 'that. the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the maaning of the Railway Labor Pct, 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 began service with Carrier in April of 1979. On June 26, 1981 Claimant was dismissed from all service on the Carrier for being absent without permission. At the time Claimant was working as an extra force laborer at Portsmouth, Ohio for the division Engineer-Maintenance. Claimant was returning from a sick leave and was notified to report on rbnday, June 22, 1981 at Reynoldsville, Ohio to work with Switch Force S. Claimant arrived for his assignment on Sunday the 21st and sought out the camp car for Switch Force 5. With the assistance of the yardmaster frown Joyce Avenue, Claimant located the camp car but discovered that it was locked. Arrangements were made for Claimant to spend the night at a local motel and to report for his work assignment

Page 2 Award No. 69 -X83$

at 7:00 AM on the 22nd. Claimant did not show for work on the 21st nor through Thursday, the 25th, when he called the Carrier's office and spoke to the Roadmaster's Clerk. Claimant was instructed to cane in on Friday and see J. D. Gearhart, Division Engineer - Maintenance. Mr. Gearhart reviewed Claimant's record, determined that Claimant's car had been impounded by the Columbus Police but that Claimant himself had not been, and based upon Claimant's record, dismissed Claimant from. all service of the Carrier.

Clairant offered the explanation that he waited at the motel, expecting to be picked up. When no one came for him he contacted the office at around 8:00 o'clock but was unable to get ahold of anybody, nor was he able to locate where the gang was working. Claimant testified at his hearing that he looked all day Monday for the gang but was unable to locate them. On Tuesday morning he was stopped by the Reynoldsville Police where his car was impounded and held for a $30.00 fine. He explained that after he paid the fine he was broke he had to walk several miles to get to someplace where he could obtain sore funds to pay for his taw bill, that he had to get a release from the police department, necessitating further delays while his title was brought down to him from his hone and so on.

In his short tern of service Claimant had been warned on at least four different occasions about excessive absenteeism. Carrier concluded from Claimant's explanation as well as his failure to contact any Carrier officer from Monday morning until Thursday afternoon that Claimant manifested no sincere genuine or responsible attitude toward keeping his employment with the railroad. Based upon the record before us, the Board can find no abuse by Carrier of the conclusions it arrived

"Consider this as a letter of warning to you for being absent without permission...

that you may know the seriousness of being absent without permission, we are quoting Rile 26 of your current M!W Agse~nt made between your organization and the Norfolk and Western Railway Company: IaJLE 26 - Detained from Plork

'An employee desiring to be absent from service must obtain permission from his foreman or the proper officer.- In case an employee is unavoidably kept from work, he will not be discriminated against. An employee detained from work on account of sickness or for any other good cause shall notify his foreman or the proper officer as early as possible."

We trust that you will give this letter your utmost attention so that this will not happen again. If so, we will have no alternative except to take drastic action against you."

Page 4 Award No. 69 - / 8 3 6