PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 76- and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines)
 STATEMENT "1. That the Carrier violated the provisions of the current Agreement
 -CLAIM LAIM when on April 14, 1980 it dismissed Track Laborer G.H. Gehrke from its
 service for his alleged violation of Rule M-810 of the General Rules
 and Regulations, said action being unduly harsh and in abuse of discre
 tion.
 2. That Track Laborer Gehrke be reinstated to the service of the Carrier
 with seniority and all other rights restored unimpaired and that he be
 compensated for all time lost."
 FINDINGS

 Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Car-
 rier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that
      ,

this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

 Claimant herein, following an investigation, was terminated after Carrier found him guilty of being absent without proper authority on a series of dates including March 20 through March 26.

 There is no question but that Claimant was absent without authority on the days indicated and subsequently as well. Thus, Carrier was correct in assuming and concluding that Claimant was guilty of the charges which involved violation of Rule M-810. This Board function in a dispute such as that herein consists of determining first whether or not the investigation supports with substantial evidence Carrier's conclusion of guilt on the part of Claimant. The second function of this Board is to determine whether or not assuming that Carrier was correct in its initial conclusion with respect to guilt, the penalty was appropriate and neither harsh, discriminatory nor an abuse of discretion.

au3~r-~.~

_. -2-

 In the case at bar since Carrier's case was amply supported by the evidence secured at
 the investigation, the sole remaining matter is the measure of discipline. In view of
 the fact that Claimant had a relatively short period of service (less than three years;
 and that Carrier bent over backwards in~an attempt to adjust any problems which might
 have caused the absences involved in this dispute, the Board cannot see itself inter
 fering with the decision reached by Carrier with respect to the penalty. Under all-the
 circumstances the ultimate penalty of dismissal, in this instance, cannot be deemed to
 have been discriminatory, harsh and an abuse of discretion. Hence, the claim must be
 denied. `
 AWARD
          Claim denied.


                    I.M. Lieberman, Neutra -Chairman


L.~herling, Carr! Member S.E.` Fleming,' Employee Me ber

 January 24, 1981 San Francisco, CA