r

                        Case No. MW-RO-76-1


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 suspending Claimant G. E. Thomason from service.
 Claim:
 2. Claimant Thomason shall be compensated for the five (5) days that
 he was unfairly suspended.
 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 for over three (3) years, was suspended from
 work for the week of October 6 through October 10, 1975 for his disregard
 of the Terminal Supervisor's letter of June 3, 1975 which read:
 "Consider this as a letter of warning you for being absent without per
 mission. A copy of this letter is being placed on your record. So that
 you may know the seriousness of being absent without permission, we are
 quoting Rule 25 of your Current MW Agreement made between your Organization
 and the Norfolk & Western Railway Company:
 "Rule 25 ----Detained From Work:
 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 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."
 The record reflects that Claimant was absent without permission June 23,
 - -2- Award No. 8 - /1338
v
              30, July 11, 18, 22, August 8, 14, 22, September 3, 9, 15, 23, 24, and October 2, 1975. He did call in several hours after his required reporting time on August 8, 14, September 1, 5, and 23 to give some reason for his absence. However, Carrier,in such instances, did not believe that Claimant notified, as required per Rule 25,"as early as possible."


              The Board concludes that Claimant was accorded due process, that sufficient competent evidence was adduced to support Carrier's conclusion as to Claimant's failures and that the discipline imposed was reasonable.


    Award: Claim denied. .


              A. J.Cunningham, mpjoyee Member G. C. Edwards, Ca ier Member


                                  Or ~1,

                                  0/ 1W

                          Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman and Neutral Member


                          Issued at Wilmington, Delaware, May 1, 1978.