Parties to Dispute: International Brotherhood of Firemen and oilers, A8'L-CIO
 and
 Consolidated Rail Corporation
 Statement of Claim: System Docket CR-2057
 Dismissal of D. P. Lewis
 Opinion of Hoard:

 Claimant was hired on December 12, 1978, as a Laborer at Carriar's Avon Diesel Terminal, Avon, Indiana. The record, without specific documentation,
 indicates that at the time of his employment and continuously thereafter Claim- ,
 ant's true duties were as an undercover agent at the Avon. facility although he i

 was assigned as a Laborer.






As per organization and Claimant's request, the originally scheduled hearing was postponed and rescheduled fox May 29, 1981. Said hearing was held as per rescheduling, Claimant, however, did not appear. Pursuant to said hearing, Claimant was adjuged guilty as charged and was dismissed. Said termination was appealed and is now properly before this Board for resolution.
 Organization's basics contention in this dispute is that Claimant's termination was motivated solely because his (Claimant's) identity had become known to other employees and Carrier believed that he was no longer of value as an undercover agent. Moreoever, Organization maintains that Claimant had received pe=ission from his supervisor to leave work early on Saturday, April 24, 1981, in order to
 ' _2_ ~~ao-3





_ - -:;z -7


mail of the time, date and place of the proceedings". Additionally, Carrier also contends that reference to Claimant's previous record (incidents 30 days prior to claimant's trial) was entirely proper because "(W)hen preferring such a charge (excessive absenteeism) it was incumbent upon the carrier to prove that over a protected (sic) period of time that Claimant was absent for an excessive period". Such action, Carrier argues is supported by the following Awards: Second Division Award No. 5431 and Award No. 39 of Public Law Board No. 2618.
 Carrier's last major contention in this dispute is that reference to any material which was contained in a denosition which was taken from Claimant after the hearing was held on the property, cannot be considered by the Hoard at this time.
 The Board has carefully read and studied the complete record in this dispute and is convinced that Carrier's action was proper and, therefore, will remain undisturbed.
 As a point of departure, Organization's procedural objections are found to be completely meritless. ::se record demonstrates that Claimant had already been granted a postponement of his first trial; Carrier's notification, to Claimant of the rescheduling of the trial was mailed to Organization and Claimant in accordance with normal procedures; and there was no satisfactory reason adduced or even suggested which would have justified a second postpon.--ent.

    Concerning Carrier's .reference to incidents which miaht have occurred thirty

(30) days prior to Claimant's trial and Organization assertion that such reference was in violation of Rule 20R, suffice it to say that said rule clearly applies to the precipitating incident which has given rise to an immediate action, and in

                                                    no way precludes Carrier from considering previous infractions for purposed of r r determining the appropriate degree of penalty which is to be assessed by Carrier. such was Carrier's obvious motivation in the instant case and which, under the circumstances, cannot be faulted.


      Turning to the merits portion of this dispute, our first area of concern is


'Carrier's objection to Organization's reference to any information Vnich may have
 been contained in Claimant's post-hearing depsition. l~egardless of organization's assertion that Claimant was Improperly'denied the opportunity to testify at his own trial and thus organization had to resort to this action in order to get the "facts" before the Hoard, the almost universal nature of the principle that the party's respective case must be made "on the property" is so firmly established in railroad labor/management relations that any further consideration of this particular issue is entirely unnecessary.l~
 Having made the foregoing determinations, the disposition of any of the remaining issues becomes an almost foregone condlusion. The facts of record relating to Claimant's relatively short tenure with carrier and the unenviable record which he amassed up to the point of his termination, convinces the Hoard that Carrier's action herein was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor an abuse o£
 Managerial discrection.
 Award- ,
 Claim denied-

x tp


G.Y. Welsh, carrier me "or G Francisc, ZmployeeXmmber
 rr

                  n J. . knit, 3r

                  ai and Neutral mmrohe


1.
 Even if this Hoard was inclined to consider this particular offering (which it is not), it might be )xelpful to the parties in future cases of a similar nature to note that items tll, #12 and #13 thereof contain mueexaus,significant inconsistencies. Particularly noteworthy in this consideration is that item #Il alleges ttist 5uper» visor Tyler would not grant claimant "outright permission" to leave work early but " . advised me (Claimant) to make arrangements with my foreman . . -- However, in items #12 and #13, Claimant thereafter states categorically that MY. Tyler gave him (Claimant) permission to leave work early on the days in question.

 A I I