` PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 1838
 Award No. 7
 Case No. MW-RO-75-6
 Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 to and
 Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company
 Statement 1. Carrier violated the effective Agreement by unfairly and unjustly
 of dismissing Section Laborer Davis on May 16, 1975.
 Claim:
 2. Claimant Davis shall be reinstated to service, paid for all time
 lost; with vacation, seniority and all other rights unimpaired.
 Findings: The Board finds, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence
 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, a Section Laborer since June 7, 1973, was dismissed from service
 May 16, 1975, for his constant absenteeism which resulted in violation
 of Agreement Rule 25 and for failing to notify proper authority in connection
 therewith.
 Rule 25 (now Rule 26) reads:
 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.
 A subsequent investigation held. at Claimant's request failed to cause any
 change in the discipline imposed.
 The Board finds that Claimant was accorded due process. It was not error
 Awo h-1$3a

 The Board also finds that there was

 Carrier's conclusions of Claimant' of being absent without notifying

 when Carrier refused to consider evidence not presented at the June 6, 1975 hearing, in the absence of a proviso therefore made at that time. Claimant was given sufficient notice of the charges brought against him, he enjoyed the right of representation, of cross examination of witness and exercised his right of appeal. There were no procedural exceptions taken at the hearing.

 substantial evidence adduced to support

 s culpability concerning his poor record the proper authorities. Said record

 reflects that between July 16, 1974 and May 16, 1975, a period involving some 231 working days, Claimant was absent 131 days. Claimant on 51 of such days either requested permission therefor or presented a doctor's

 slip upon his return to duty. However failed to request permission to be off, present a reason for such absence upon

 period Claimant had been warned, orall behavioral pattern with no correction

 The Board on this record fails to find

 unreasonable. In the circumstances this

Claim Denied.
A. J. C[diiningham, Emplc~e~ Member


Issued at Wilmington, Delaware, May 1, 1978.

 y

 on the remaining 80 days Claimant he failed to call in, or, to returning to duty. During all this and in writing, about his attendance

 resulting therefrom.

 that the discipline imposed was

 claim will be denied.

 .wards, Carrier Member,