PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

        Chicago & North Western Transportation Company


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

    Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


(1) The thirty (30) day suspension assessed Trackman D. H.
 Lopez on the charge of excessive absenteeism is unduly harsh,
 excessive, improper and on the basis of an unjust hearing.
 [Organization File 2SW-1024 D; Carrier File 81-85-168 DI

 (2) Claimant Lopez shall be allowed the remedy as prescribed in
 Rule 19 (d)."

 OPINION OF THE BOARD
 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds that the Employe and Carrier involved in this dispute are respectively Employe and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that-the Board has-jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 On March 25, 1985 the Carrier directed the Claimant to attend an investigation. The notice read in pertinent part as follows:

      "You are hereby directed to appear for formal investigation

      as indicated below:

PLB 2960 -2- /~G~p ~3

      PLACE: Roadmaster's Office

      1400 LaClede Street

      Trenton, Missouri

      TIME: 9:00 A. M.


      DATE: Friday, March 29th, 1985

CHARGE: Your responsibility in connection with your
 excessive absenteeism, subjectto provisions of applicable
 rules in the Applicable Schedule and you may, if you so
 desire, produce witnesses in your own behalf, without
 expense to the Transportation Company."
 Subsequent to the investigation the Claimant was assessed a 30
 day suspension.
 At the investigation the Carrier presented evidence
 concerning (1) the Claimant's absence on March 23, 1985 and
 (2) five earlier absences on February 2, 13, 14, March 6, 15,
 and 23. Significantly, at the investigation, the General
 Chairman made two objections to the inclusion of these later -
 dates. First, he objected because they were outside the 10-day
 time limit for charges set forth in Rule 19. Second, he argued
 the notice of hearing was defective because it was not specific
 as to set dates other than March 23, 1985.
 These objections both require the Board's attention.
 First, Rule 19 does not act as a bar to a charge of excessive
 absenteeism even if some of the dates are outside the 10-day
 time limit. It would be an unreasonable application of the rule
 to foreclose the Carrier from addressing an; employee-while
 attendance record as a whole was unacceptable. It is important
 for the Carrier to have such latitude.
 PLB 2960 -3- Awn /3-~-
 While the Carrier in these unusual circumstances should have the latitude to look at an employee's attendance record over a broader spectrum of time than any one 10-day period, there-is also a very important competing consideration raised by the General Chairman's second objection.
 Rule 19 requires a specific charge, which is an important requirement in and of itself. However, it becomes even more important in an excessive absenteeism case since some of the absences may be weeks or months old. An employee is entitled to have such a notice spell- out exactly what dates the Carrier is relying on. It is often difficult to recall "cold turkey" circumstances surrounding events that are far in the past. In this case that's precisely what happens and thus it is difficult to conclude a fair hearing was granted. If the Carrier is going to rely on dates beyond 10 days to support a charge of excessive absenteeism it must specify in those charges the dates which it intends to investigate so as to allow the Claimant sufficient time for preparation.
 This due process consideration is too important to ignore and on this basis the discipline must be overturned. Yet, let there be no misinterpretation of this award. Excessive absenteeism is a proper charge. Moreover, but for the procedural glitch the case against the Claimant was fairly, convincing. A most important element was the fact he had been counseled on March 16 concerning his absenteeism and was subject to progressive discipline on previous occasions.
 FLB 2960 -4- ,LJWp l3~

 AWARD:

    The claim is sustained.


Gil on, Chairman
 D. artholomay a _ i on
 Employe Member a er M ber

 Dated:

      (7 67