Parties: Brotherhood of Maintenance of 'ray Employees
 and
 Union Pacific Railroad Company

 Statement of Claim: "l. That the Carrier violated the
 Agreement between the Carrier
 and the Brotherhood of 'Maintenance of
 Way Fmployees ·ghen on "December 19,
 1973 they dismissed B~2 Helper
 S. W. Parsons III without Just -
 and sufficient cause and on the
 basis of improven charges.

Discussion: Claimant had a seniority date of August b, 1973.
 Re entered service at Ogden, was furloughed, and on October 29, 1973`
 transferred to Salt Lake City as a B&B Helper and worked on the can
 straction of the Carrier's new Diesel Snap until his removal from
 service on Decenfber 19, 1973 for alleged violation of Rule 702 which
 states:

                                        Case No. li

            - ~. _.~ _ PLO I Gq-7


- The operative facts surrounding this claim are
 that the Claimant did not report for work on Friday, December 114, 1973.
 ?His father called the Clerk in the E&,u3 Office to state that his son
 was too ill to report for work. This information was given to the
 Clerk in the Project ingineer*s Office. The next day, December 15,
 1973, the Claimant went skiing at Ogden and twisted his right knee.

 H1 ay
 e was treated that d s December 15th, a_ the cKay-Eee Hospital for an acute sprain of the right knee. The following, December 16, 1973 was a rest day for the Claimant.

 On Xnnday$ December 17, 1973, the Claimant called the Office of the Project Engineer :5r. Manson, and spoke to his clerk and allegedly told the clerk that he had injured himself in a skiing accident and that he had a doctor's appointment for 3:00 P.::. that day, and would report later that day,
 The Claimant's version is that he called the clerk and told him that he had a doctor's appointment at 3:00 P.M. and that he would find out when he could return to work. The Claimant stated that the clerk told him that he could have to files an accident report and the Claimant purportedly replied that he would come to the office after he had seen the doctor at 3:00 P.M. The Claimant testified that when he went to the doctor's office at 3:00 P.M. the doctor was not in because he eras sick and that his appointment was rescheduled for 3:00 P.:,. the next day. The Claimant further testified that he saw the doctor the nest day as scheduled who gave bin a release to go back to work which he did on Wednesday, December 19, 1973. When the Claimant reported for duty on December 19th he was informed orally that he had
                                            Award No. 3 Case No. 4

                        _ 3 _ PL G J 99-7

been removed from service. On December 20, 1973, the Claimant was notified in writing that he had been removed from service for violation of Rule 702.
 The Claimant filed a claim protesting the Carriers disciplinary action.' On June 30, 1974, the Carrierts Chief Fngineer offered to restore the Claimant to service on a leniency basis without prejudice to his right to file a claim for all time lost. The Claimant returned to work on July 2, 1974 and then proferred the instant claim.

                    Carriers Position

The Carrier stated prefatorily that it was beset with absenteeism among the employees of the B&B Gang at Salt Lake City. It noted that the Claimant had been absent eight out of thirty
 days between October 29 and December 19, 1973. On December 10, 1973, the General Foreman met with all the employees of the B&9 Gang in Salt Sake City to discuss the acute problem of absenteeism. The Carrier stressed that on the fourth day after this meeting the Claimant called in stating that he had the flu and he eras not able to come to work.. Nevertheless, the Claimant recovered sufficiently the next day to go skiing and in the course of this sprained his right knee.
 On the next work day, December 17th, the Claimant should have notified the Carrier by 8:00 A.M. that be was unable to report for work. However, he testified that he thought he reported before 10:30 A.M. The Carrier stated its records showrx that the
                                        Award 3<o. 3 Case No. b


                          4 _ PL q 1 X39'7


Claimant called in at 10:30 A.M. 'eben the clerk told the Claimant that he would have to file an accident report, the Claimant replied that he would report later that day and fill out the said report at that time.
 The Carrier stated that its understanding of the conversation vas that the Claimant stated he would report for work at 12:30 P.M. The Carrier added that on December 17, the Claimant neither reported for work nor filed any accident report. The Carrier added that if the Claimant pas not able to see the doctor as he alleged, then it ryas his responsibility to inform his supervisor that he would not be able to report for duty on Tuesday, December 13th. The Claimant failed to do this. This was another flagrant violation of Pule 702 and evidence of the Claimant=s failure to reduce or eliminate absenteeism which was a big problem. The Carrier emphasized that the Claimant violated Rue 702 twice just a week after he had participated in a meeting called by his supervisors to combat this problem. The Claimant apparently was not impressed with the Carrier's efforts to cope with this problem; and he continued to flou:t. the relevant rul ez., and thus subjected himself to disciplinary action.
 The Carrier stressed that it chose to rely on the credibility of its supervisors, I.e., the Project Engineer and the General B&B Foreman rather than the conflicting and confusing testimony of the Claimant. The Claimant has demonstrated daring his short tenxre a total lack of responsibility and reliability toward meeting his assignment. It eras proper to dismiss the Claimant. He was permitted to reenter service on a leniency basis to afford him an opportunity
                                        Award No. 3 Case No. Lt


                          5 _ PLG199-7


to demonstrate that he could be a dependable employee. No valid purpose would be served try rendering a monetary award.

                    Organization's Position

The Organization asserted that the Carrier assessed a heavy disciplinary sanction an evidence which was both hearsay and speculative. The ?ro~ect 'deer had no conversation with the Claimant, but relied on what his clerk told him. He dismissed the Claimant on the basis of hearsay rather than on facts of his o-sm ~mossledge. The Clea°eral. Foreman called for the Clairantcs dismissal on conjecture and speculation about the Claimantts absences and had no contact with or knaxledge of the Claimant after he left nark on the evening of December 13, 1973. Ee based his reasons for disis5.asiag the Claimant on pure speculation without knowing ;whether the Claimant had valid reasons for being absent from work.

 The Organization did not make even a cursory investigation as to the reasons why the Claimant was absent from work on December 14 because of ',.he flu and on Iecembar 17 and IS., 1973.
 E:ad it done so, it vauld have discovered that the Claimant care do-an with the flu on the night of Thursday, December 13 and Friday, December U.t, and aas not able to report for duty on December 3.1. It is not unusual for a person to recover quickly from attacks of the s24 hour" flu sad be able to function normally the next day. Moreover, the Organization stressed that the Claimant obtained a doctors certificate for his absence on Friday: December 1.-s, 1973 and there is
                                        Award o. 3 Case Rio. h


                        _6_ PL Q 199'7

no valid basis for the Carrier to question or discipline the Claimant for that absence.
 With regard to the Claimant's absence on VlondayJ December 17 and 131 1973, the Claimant explained the reasons therefor. The Claimant called his supervisor as soon as he was able an December 17. He informed the suge-visoros clerk that he would find oat from the doctor when he could return to work. In vies of the fact that the Claimant was not able to see the doctor at 3:00 F.H. on December 179 he was not able to inform the Carrier when he would be able to return to work. As soon as the Claimant received a release frost the doctor in the afternoon of December 18th, he returned to work on December 19th.
 The Organization denied that the Claimant informed the suiperrisor;s clerk that he would report to the office on the afternoon of December 17..
 The Organisation also -tatted that the Claimant explained at the Investigation the reasons for his absences of eight days between October 29 to December 19, 1973. The Claimant asserted that one day involved a court appearance,, two days -;ere-for illnesa' and the other days involved days of very bad weather in Ogden when the foreman told the employees, including the Claimant., that they would not be required to work if thed were not prepared for the bad weather. The Claimant stated he -worked in a big snow store with rubber boots that had holes in the bottom and his feet were soaked and he went home that day. The Organization further stressed that the Claimant was charged only for his absences of December 17 and 18., 1973 and the
                                          Award P:o. 3 Case No. L


                        _7_

                                            PL 6 19q'7


Carrier had no right to interject any other absences into these proceedings. As for the Claimant's conduct on December 17 and 18s the Claimant has explained his actions reasonably and properly. Since the only part of Rule 702 that the Claimant was charged with violating was absenting himself from duty without proper authority, the Organization stated the evidence does not support that charge, and the assessed discinline should be vacated and the Claimant made whole for all the wages and benefits he lost frown the time he eras taken out of service until he was restored to duty.

 Findings: The Boards upon the whole record and x31 the
 evidence$ finds that the employee and Carrier are Dq)loyee and Carrier
 within the meaning of the Failway Labor Act; that the Board has juris
 diction over the dispute and that the parties to the dispute were
 given due notice of the hearing thereon.
 The Board finds that the evidence shows that there sere at least technical violations on December 17 and 18, 1973. On December 17, 19739 the Claimant had the duty to notify, the Carrier that he would not report for duty that day prior to the starting time of his shift. This the Claimant did not do. The Carrier further stated that its evidence indicated that the Claimant stated he would report for duty on December 17,, at 12:30 P.M.., which he did not do. The Board is unable to resolve the conflict in the testimony but it is evident that the Claimant had an obligation to let the Carrier laa-a during the day of December 17 What was his status regarding his return to work with same degree of specificity which he failed to do.
                                        Award :=o.. 3 Case no. h

                        -8-

                                          Pz. t3 1 9a -r


Putherrmre, he~gave the Carrier no notice at all of his status on December 18, not reporting to. it in any stay or manner.
 The Board finds the Claimant's conduct was cavalier in meeting his responsibilities toward the Carrier. 'Within a fern days after a Carrier convened meeting to discuss absenteeism' the Claimant became too III to report for work, but nevertheless able to go siding the next day. 'Ails it is true that the Carrier technically charged the Claimant with his conduct only on Deceaiber 17 and 18.. 1973, it was in fact examining the totality of his attendance record - which was something less than praise:rorthy. The Carrier decided it did not ,rant the Claimant to remain 3n its employ, becausa in the relatively short time he had been employed, he did not appear to be a responsible and dependable employee.
 Tdhile the Board understands the Carrier's wish not to continue in its employ a short term employee ;oho does not appear to be responsible, nevertheless, the Carrier must promptly put the employee on notice that his conduct is not pexrtiscible, and 3n this case, the Carrier failed to do this. Curing the period that the Claimant :gas absent eight times out of a.period of approximately 30 days, there is no evidence that the Carrier issued no speciZ'ic notices or warnings to the Claimant other than the general meeting on December 10. It is not appropriate for the Carrier to assess the severe sanction of dismissal for technical violations - for that is what the Claimant committed on December 17 and 18, 1973..
 'vuhen the total record is weighed the Board finds that the Claimant is not entitled to be completely exculpated for his
                                          Award No. 3

      . Case Ho. 4

      -9- PL 13

                                                  199'7


actions in this cases because the record reveals conduct something less than exaahlary. The Claimant has demonstrated something less than zealous attention to regular attendance and should be disciplined for his less than regular and consistent attendance at his job. On the other hand, the Board finds that a suspension from December 19? 1973 until July 2x 1974 is tea severe a sanction under the facts of this. particular case. Therefore '..he Board directs the Carrier to convert the six month suspension into a four month suspension. The Carrier also has an obliggation to act diligently in informimg em-glcyees of their delinquencies) and to apply discipline progressively.
 The Board also puts the Claimants by this Award,
 on notice that any ;mtoward departure frams a.. w variance my a regular
 attendance record will not be tolerated., and my result in his dismissal
 which, the Board eagects the Organization to accept and not to a=eel.
 The Bird further directs a copy o; this Award to be made part of the
 Claimant;s personnel file.

 Award: Grievance disposed of in accordance with the
                Findings.


Order: The Carrier is directed to 2y with the Awards
                on or before 1978.


        Jacob S d ber Chairman and Neut

                  C _ _ - member af a..oar d


e G 5. L. Flemings %zzm1o;ree ·iember
 J

 ,- s'1a9~