Claimant was notified of an investigation on a charge of AWOL. Subsequent to the hearing he was dismissed.
Th evidence shows that he failed to report to work on three days and he had not sought permission to be absent.
Claimant does not assert that he had permission to be absent, but he asserts that car trouble caused his absence; he did not have the phone numbers to call Carrier officials; but he did contact a co-worker who agreed to notify the track supervisor and Foreman.
Certainly the Employee cannot avoid his responsibility by reliance upon a coworker and discipline is warranted.
Carrier justifies dismissal because the Claimant has a prior recording dealing with absences in his thirteen years of service, and it cites numerous Awards dealing with the quantum of punishment to be assessed when an Employee demonstrates a lack of concern for his future employment relationship. Although this Claimant is dangerously close to that point, we feel that a lengthy suspension is warranted.
The parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
Joseph A. Sicld
Ch man and Neutral ember
is -/~- ~y
Date