PA R'I_I(-E Brotherhood of Maintenancce.of Way Employs
 f(7 DISPUTE.:
 and
 Atchison. Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company -
 qTATEHIE=hJT_ 1. That tire? Carrier's decision _-to dismiss -
 OF . _GLAll·1~: Mr. L.C. Legge was in violation of the
 current. Agreement, excessive, unduly harsh
 and in abuse et discretion,
 - The Carrier will now be.. required to reinstate
 Mr. L.E. Legge to his former position with
 seniority and all ell-,ear rights restored, un
 impaired and compensate him for all wage .
 loss suffered during the interim period."

 I=TI~iDINES,·,

 Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that. the parties-; heroin arc. Carrier and Employees within the meaning of i ho Ruilwav Labor ;'let, «<s amended, and that this Board i_. duly oonstituted under Public Law 89-456 and hay jurisdiction of the m parties and then subject matter.

 The record indicates that Claimant was arrested while driving to
 wuHc on April 10, 198.`.1. Beinq unable to post:. bond, he was hold
 -ror some ;5 davaand then he was released -on bond. By letter dovad 17
 ,::,fir, I te, 1985, Claimant was informed that bis seniority and -
 employment. with Carrier had beuu terminted, due to being zbEr?nt
 Irom duty without permission.

Following an investlqatlon hold An May 13, 190?* Carrier rf:~t,i'ri.rme·cl its decision to torminate Claimant. In lLho courne of the investigation the evidence was clear- that Claimant was absent without proper authority on the dates in question and the re6sun Tor his absence was admittediy hi= boinq .incarcerated.


The Petitioner believes that Claimant's nine years of service and prior attendance record should be considered in the assessment of the discipline in this matter-. Carrier, on the other hand, indicates that Claimant's pass: record contains information with rrronpect to ten prior occasions in which Claimant was disciplined inclodinn seven disciplinary assessments for being absent without proper authority. In addition, he had been dismissed from service on two prior occasions and subsequently reinstated.


i.lpcrn ex;amlninq the record in
 Claimant was accorded a proper

 this case it is

 investigation and

 that investigation justified Carrier's conclusion

 ~.,.:., nr"(11ty of ch6rqon. A=. the parties both know,

 has Iono been found to be an inadequate Mambo for

 under any circumstances. In addition, in this in '-ance,
 r;i6,imant·o prior unsatisfactory record supports Carrier deci=sion -
 fh~L termination was the only available sensible recourse under `

app=gent. that the facts at that Claimant


a ncarcor·s lion

 absenteeism

Llxe eircurnsijncrs. Thc> Cl:nim mn,t- t r; rtrnir-lei.

 ~nl(nl?I i





C' f--. rcaos~. Fmplc~ye I·1t,mber L:.P1. C~a in n, Carrier' Muntber

 C,hice.clo, Illinois