The record indicates that, on April 24, 1986. Claimant telephoned his Roadmaster and requested a leave of absence for eight days. The leave request was refused. Nevertheless, Claimant was absent from April ~5 through April :.0, 1986. Followinq that ab=sence, Carrier informed him that he had been terminated for violation of Rule M-810 of the Rules and Regulations for- the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department. That Rule specifies that employees
must not absent themselves from their employment, without proper authority, and continued failure to protect their employment shall be sufficient cause for dismissal of employees. Followina an investigation at which time Carrier discovered that the absence in this instance was caused by incarceration, Carrier believed that the dismissal was warranted by the evidence and affirmed its prior decision.
Petitioner argues that the offense with which Claimant was charaed was insufficient to warrant dismissal. The Organization argues that discipline should be corrective in nature and not punitive. as was the case in this matter. Carrier indicated that he had no notion of the reason why the leave of absence was requested in the first place. and when it found, at a later date, that incarceration was the cause of absence, it could do nothing but to reaffirm its earlier decision. Furthermore, it is apparent, accordinq to the Carrier, that Claimant, in his .fail term. was wholly responsible for his predicament.
The Board finds that Claimant admitted that he was absent from Carrier's service, without proper authority, due to being in jail for a period of five days. It is clear that his responsibility for being absent without authority violated Carrier's rules and Carrier appropriately found him to be guilty of the charges. The claim cannot be sustained.