PARTIES TO DISPUTE
          Brotherhood of Maintenance and Way

                      Employees and

              Southern Railway Company


STATEMENT OF CLAIM
          Laborer, Malcolm Jacobs, Rt. 3, Box 344, Eubank, KY

          40489 was dismissed from service on May 21, 1984,--for

          allegedly failing to protect his assignment. Claim was

          handled on the property in accordance with Railway

          Labor Act and Agreement provisions. Employees request

          reinstatement with back pay for all lost time and all

          other rights unimpaired.


FINDINGS

Claimant, at the time of the dispute in question, was employed as a track laborer at Lexington, Kentucky. By letter dated May 28, 1984, Claimant was notified to attend an investigation concerning charges that he failed to protect his assignment on January 30, 1984 and thereafter. An investigation was held on June 11, 1984. By letter dated June 15, 1984, Claimant was dismissed from service on the basis of his adjudged guilt

                                                g~s-3


concerning the charges.

The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether Claimant was dismissed for just cause under the Agreement.


The position of the organization is that Carrier failed to justify the discipline imposed.


Initially, the Organization contends that Claimant followed
 proper procedure regarding his absence on January 30, 1984. The
 Organization argues that Claimant instructed his brother to
 inform Carrier that he would be unable to report on January 30,
 and that Claimant's brother did in fact inform Carrier. The -__
 Organization further argues that Carrier was notified of -

Claimant's need for an extended leave of absence due to criminal-_ charges pending against him, and that Carrier led Claimant to believe that his leave of absence was granted. The Organization therefore argues that Claimant was wrongly charged with failure to protect his assignment, since he returned to fulfill his assignment at the earliest possible opportunity.


Carrier contends that Claimant was properly dismissed for a series of unexcused absences dating from January to May of 1984.


    Carrier asserts that there is no dispute regarding Claimant's


                        2

                                                3~fs~3~


approximate four-month absence from work beginning January 30,,
 1984. Carrier maintains that Claimant never either personally requested or was granted a leave of absence. Carrier further maintains that the request made by a member of Claimant's family for the leave of absence was specifically denied, and that any
 belief on Claimant's part regarding the granting of the leave was therefore without basis. Finally, Carrier argues that any
 permission for an extended leave of absence must be given in writing according to the Agreement; and that there can be no
 question therefore that Claimant received no authorization for his absences.

    Carrier maintains that Claimant was justifiably dismissed for -

his extends period of unexcused absenteeism; and that Claimant's excuse of being incarcerated for the period in question neither ju,stified his absences nor required Carrier to grant a leave of absence.

 After review of the record, the Board finds that the Organization's claim must be denied.

 It is not the purpose of this Board to rehear an investigation that Carrier held but only to determine if the discipline imposed was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.

                        3

Carrier has sustained the charge substantial evidence. There is no d

 either Claimant's extended absence or

 obtain permission for those absences. The

 presented no evidence that at any time
 or implicitly approved Claimant's reques Absent such evidence, we cannot find th

 s

 t

against Claimant through

ispute of fact concerning

his failure to personally


Organization has

Carrier either expressly

for a leave of absence.

at Claimant had any basis


for assuming that his absences were excused. The Agreement

 specifically requires

 absence be in writing,

 from Carrier.

 circumstances that might receive permission for

 Finally,

that any grant of an extended leave of which Claimant admitted never receiving


we do not find any extenuating

otherwise excuse Claimant's failure to his absences. Claimant's incarceration


does not excuse his inability to protect his assignment, and Carrier was under no obligation under the circumstances to grant a leave of absence. Given Claimant's extended and unezcused record of absenteeism, we do not find that Carrier abused its discretion in dismissing him from its employ.
                                                3NN~3.z


AWARD
    Claim Denied.


                                Neut 1 Memb r


                                arrier mb


                                Or ni ation ae er


Date: ~~IB