In the Matter of: ) National Mediation Board
Administrator
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF )
WAY EMPLOYES, )
Organization, )
and )

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD ) Case No. 36
COMPANY, ) Award No. 36
Carrier. )





                    MEMBERS OF THE BOARD


                  Employes' Member: C. F. Foose

                  Carrier Member: D. A. Ring

                  Neutral Member: John B. LaRocco


            ORGANIZATION'S STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM


      j. That the Carrier's decision to dismiss Welder Helper M. H.

          Brossard was without just and sufficient cause and in violation of

          the current Agreement.


    2. Claimant will now be restored to his former position with seniority

          and all other rights restored and compensated for all wage loss

          suffered and all charges be expunged from his record.

Public Law Board No. 3241 Page 1
Case No. 36, Award No. 36

                    OPINION OF THE BOARD


This Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended; that this Board has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the dispute herein; that this Board is duly constituted by an Agreement dated July 23, 1982; and that all parties were given due notice of the hearing held on this matter.

Claimant entered the Carrier's service on September 5, 1989 as a Welder's Helper on Gang 7358. During the next five months, the Manager of Track Maintenance counseled Claimant at least once about being absent from work without proper authority.

On March 12, 1990, Claimant called the Carrier to lay-off work due to illness. Three days later, Claimant told the Manager of Track Maintenance that he wanted to resign from service because of personal problems. More specifically, Claimant stated that he expected to be incarcerated. Although the Manager sent Claimant a resignation form to sign, Claimant never returned the form. Between March 15, 1990 and July 20, 1990, Claimant was absent from work. During this period he neither contacted the Carrier nor received permission to be away from work.

At an investigation held on July 27, 1990, the Carrier proffered substantial evidence that Claimant was absent without authority for the lengthy period running from March 15, 1990 through July 20, 1990. While he was given proper notice of the investigation, Claimant did not attend the July 27 hearing, and thus, the record does not contain any explanation for his persistent and excessive absenteeism. Indeed, Claimant's failure to attend the investigation evinces that he has little interest in maintaining his employment with the Carrier

i

      Public Law Board No. 3241 Page 2

      Case No. 36, Award No. 36


          In view of his short length of service, this Board upholds the Carrier's decision to dismiss


      Claimant from service.


                          AWARD AND ORDER


          Claim denied.


          Dated: April 16, 1993


            C. F. Fo fe D. . ' g

            Employees' Member Carr r ember


                            John B. LaRocco -

                            Neutral Member


a:3241.36