Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 to and

            Dispute Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Texas and Louisiana Lines)


Statement 1 . Carrier violated the effective Agreement when System
 of Laborer D. W. Nixson was unjustly dismissed by letter dated
 Claim April 16, 1980.

        2. Claimant Nixson shall now be reinstated to his finer position with pay for all time lost, vacation, seniority and all other rights unimpaired.


Findings The Hoard, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee, within the meaning of fine Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated July 19, 1979, that it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing held.

Claiman t, a system laborer first went to work on the Lufkin District on March 25, 1980.

    He was advised under date of April 16, 1980 as follows:


        "You have been absent from your job assignment without proper authority from April 8, 1980 to date, which is in violation of Rule M810 of the General Rules and Regulations of the Southern Pacific Transportation Co. as posted by General Notice. Rule M810 reads in part as follows:

                  Rule M810:

        'The employees must report far duty at the prescribed time and place ...They must rest absent themselves from their employment without proper authority... Continued failure by employees to protect their employment

        Page 2 ~IIVII- Award No. 36

        shall be sufficient cause for dismissal..."


        For your, violation of Rule M810 you are dismissed from the service of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company..."

Claimant requested a hearing. Request was granted and a hearing was set for Nay 8, 1980. It was held as scheduled but Clairnont failed to attend said investigation. Hover, he was capably represented thereat by his General Chairman.


    As a result thereof, he was advised on May 13, 1980, that:


        "Testirrany taken at a hearing held on your behalf

        May 8, 1980 reveal you were in violation of Rule M810 =

        as charged; therefore, your dismissal will stand."

The Hoard finds that Claimant was first employed March 7, 1978, i.e. two years and a mmth to the time of dismissal.

The Board finds that Claimant was accorded the due process to which entitled under Article XIV, Discipline Investigation Rule.

There was sufficient evidence adduced to support Carrier's conclusion as to Claimant's culpability. Claimant was working under the supervision of District Maintenance of Way Manager J. A. Flories for sore 2h months, he had been aware of the requirement to obtain permission to be absent. Claimant was absent far the period April 8th through the 16th. Cn April 9th he contacted his supervisor and was to cone in the following day. Claimant failed to show up. He alleged that he had car trouble.

The record reflects that between March 25, 1980, when Claimant first went to work on the Infkin District until the date of his dismissal he was absent nine working days and reported late three hours on one day.

                        Page 3 ?qqq - Award No. 36

    The Hoard finds in the circumstances the discipline is reasonable.

This Claim will be denied.
 ATQRD: Claim denied.

                    -a


~M. A.~Chri4tld, Fl*loyee Member C. B. Goyne, Carri ~er,~ber

                Arthur T. Van WarC, Chairman

      ' and Neutral. Member


Issued at Falnnuth, Massachusetts, June 10, 1982.