P AR~T.IQ brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 Tiff L?I:.~(yUT~
 and
 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railwav Company
 :,'r~f'I'ilL`I~T "1. That the Carrier violated the provision
 QE"-C.LFI.TM_ of the current Agreement when it dismissed
 L & r Fainter, D. J. Ritter, without first
 giving Mr. Ritter the benefit of a fair- and
 impartial hearing, ·=ai.d action being excessive
 and in abuse of discretion.
 2 . That Carrier- shall now be required to reinstate
 claimant to his former position with seniority
 nod all. other rights restored unimpaired and
 compensate him for all wane loss suffered."
 F WD 1 tJQS~
 Upon the: whole record, after hearing, the Hoard finds that the
 parties heroin are Carrier and Employees within tile meaning of
 the Railwav Labor Acct, 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 was charged with failure to report for- duty at: the prescribed time and place on May 22, t985. Following a hear.inn he "de:. found lauil'ty of the charges and d'_se'_eod 20 damurits. His idditioaal deimerlto renulted in his having a -total of G.O demeri0-

;-,? -r -7 y-1sr

 or, his record, and subjected him to removal from service pursuant to rule 31-H of Carrier's General Rules for the guidance of r>mnlaves>. He was notified of his removal from service effective ,tune 12, 1995 for having accumulation of excessive demerit:..

 The Petitioner
 t.cothaLhO and

 insists in

 attempted to

 this instance that

 contact. his foreman

 secure Lime off to qo to see the dentist. He was

 reaching his foreman. He dial indeed contact the

 at another location same three

 7ta,rtinu
 testimony Lhat the

 post record

 pe·ram nc>ion of the day.

 ~t Claimant had a

in an effort to unsuccessful in


general foreman

prior his normal. there is little


hours or more insists that

 than those facts introduced at the hearing and

 time. The Petitioner

 ether

 hearing largely was daunted to a review of Claimant's

 Furtl°rE·r-mur-e. Petitioner claims that he had tacit:

 tron Carrier' supervisor to be off for the remainder

 Carrier t,c·liwcs that. it acted appropriatelY i-l: is clear- that Petitioner did not abide by

 net.. contact the sr.vpE=rvi.sor prior to starting

 taer;ircnir,cs of his shift. He was aqkropriatelv

 in this instance the rules -;anti

 time or al_

 found qu.iitv and

 t:·,;cusaivc demerits warranted his dismissal. There is no doubt that Claimant i.=. guilty of aloe charge=.: .in this instance.

.and did the his but The

C;~ ~ //-i5 -c-

 a.mposit.ion of ^Ct demerits does not ser_·m to be

 t ltm Pay..t.ac:rrl.,r

 r-rs _~a u 1 i e: ci

 The facet thtai'.

 Ln an e::cns»x..~!.:

 in appr-opr-i,;d.e_· fur
 thtesc- ':'O rJe·mer.i.i·

 rxunWer tit demerits haviriq been asse.,ssod

 ...md tc.cuitiu lte·d by ulr:,:imant is unfortt.mate but never the lesa is 'An

 ,;pF.ropriale u_>;te!nsi.un

 ri>_-'ca.oi.i.rtra m this

 of Carrier' _ disc.iplinar-s· syst_em. Thei.ns:Wnce was well wilhi.r, tt:r> -ire,me·wr..rt: of

 C,xr-r-i.o,-'f: ncarnm,:tl di>ciplinar-y methods anti approach and shOUld not be interfe·r4·d mth in any way. The Claim must be denied.

 Claim denied.

 T.M. LaW:r=imwn~_NW utt:al Member

 C:. F'. Fpbe~ Chicaqo. Illinois

 February 11 .. 1998

 CM. GarInOn , Cari .ieit _f9umber