PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of. Way Employees
 TO
 DISPUTE: and
 Seaboard System Railroad (r. & r1 RR)
 STATEMENT 1. The dismissal of Track Repairman R. J. Shields
 OF
 CLAIM: was without just cause and wholly disproportionate.
 2. Claimant Shields shall be reinstated with all
 seniority and other rights unimpaired and compen
 sated for all wage loss suffered.
 FINDINGS: Claimant, an employee with five years service,
 was dismissed on July 3, 1979 for excessive absent
 - eeism.
 Foreman De Vault testified that claimant missed
 about 30 days of work between January 1 and June 1, 1979 and that
 Asst. Roadmaster Hodge and he warned .claimant on at least two occa
 sions during that time to improve his attendance. On approximately
 12 to 15 of these occasions, accord.ing to Mr. De Vault's testimony,
 claimant furnished a sick slip from his doctor. It is Mr. Hodge's
 testimony that claimant was absent 36 days during the first five
 months of 1979, most of the time without a doctor's certificate.
 Mr. Hodge's testimony is buttressed by an e-xhibit showing the

                                    1


                                    f·.

x363- Ac-,'z~ ~~IS -
                                                            2.


      specific 36 dates of absence.


      Claimant testified that he had been absent about 30 days, as testified by Foreman: De Vault, and that he had furnished doctor's certificates for 20 of those days. He testified that h-is - absences on other days were due to personal business.

      The record supports Carrier's findings that claimant had been absent an excessive number of days without adequate explanation. It should be noted, moreover, that massive absenteeism, whatever the cause, is a proper basis for discipline. An employee, particularly in the, railroad industry, has an obligation to provide steady service.

      The record establishes that claimant had previously been duly warned and disciplined because-of excessive absenteeism. He was dismissed for that offense on December 5, 1978 and was restored to,service one month later on a leniency basis. His record of attendance subsequent to his reinstatement does not show that he tried to be an employee upon whom Carrier could rely for regular duty.

      We find no basis for setting aside Carrier's decision to dismiss claimant.


      AWARD: Claim denied.


                    Ad op a at Jadksonville, Florida, P:"

                                                    T4w G~ 1984.


                  . p ,

                  Haro d M. WestoY~=,- Chairman -


'JGarrier Member ~Employ/~