PARTIES TO DISPUTE
                                                        I.


            BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES


                        AND


              NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY


STATEMENT OF CLAIM
    M. D. Kelly, 505 Rogers Street, Bluefield, WV 24701 was dismissed on January 16, 1986 for alleged excessive absenteeism. Claim was filed by the Employes in accordance with Railway Labor Act and agreement provisions. Employes request reinstatement and pay for all lost time with vacation and seniority rights unimpaired.


          I


FINDINGS
    Claimant entered the Carrier's service on November 13, 1978.


                                                            I


    By letter dated November 26, 1.985, Claimant was notified to attend a


formal investigation';on charges of, excessive absenteeism. At; the investiga- _i
 tion, rescheduled to January 10, 1986, Claimant failed to appear. By letter
 dated January 16, 1986, Claimant.was dismissed based on evidence adduced at,
the investigation. !
    The question to be decided in this dispute is whether Claimant was


              I

                        in .'

dismissed for just cause under the Agreement; and if not, what should the

 remedy be..

 Claimant has received 11 letters of warning for absenteeism during his service with the Carrier, six of, those between April and December 1985. Between August 5 and September 12; 1985, Claimant.,was.absent from his assignment 11 out of 24 work days. His reasons for being absent varied, including his own illness and the death of a close family friend. The death of a family ffiend precipitated a three-day absence but was never substantiated in writing, although no substantiation was requested by Claimant's supervisor.

 The position of the Organization is that Claimant was dismissed without just cause because the severity of the discipline is not reasonably related or proportional to the offense. 'The organization admits that Claimant has . been absent from his assignment, although it does not admit to the number of absences alleged by'the Carrier. The Organization points out that Claimant's supervisor testified that he was only genuinely concerned about the three-day absence caused by the death of Claimant's family friend, and that this concern was actually about Claimant's failure to substantiate the absence in writing. The Organization contends that it is unreasonable for the Carrier to have dismissed Claimant for not producing written substantiation when it never requested substantiation from Claimant.

 The position of the Carrier is that Claimant was justly dismissed for expess absenteeism. The Carrier maintains that Claimant's extremely poor

 ,. ., ,.
                                                        ,f f


                                      i


attendance record justifies his dismissal because an employe,has an , ,
 obligation to energetically protect his position by appearing for work ~`regularly. Moreover, the Carrier contends that dismissal is an appropriate
 discipline because it is well established that an employe unable or
 unwilling to fulfill his work obligations does not have to be retained.
 After review of the entire record, the Board finds that Claimant was
 dismissed for just cause under the Agreement.
 The Carrier has established by substantial, credible evidence in the
 record that Claimant has been absent on numerous occasions both leading up

 to his dismissal and throughout his service. The Organization's contention

                                                      f

thax the Carrier is only concerned 'with Claimant's three-day absence, due to a family friend's death, is without foundation. Similarly misplaced is the Organization's understanding that the Carrier's concern was only that Claimant did not produce written substantiation of that one absence.

                                                            I

Rather,. the Carrier's justifiable concern is Claimant's repeated absence. It is well settled that~repeated,absence or ,tardiness is an adequate basis for dismissal, eveA if there are valid excuses for some of the instances of non-attendance: Part of the'foundation of the employment relationship is the'employe's obligation to regularly present himself or herself for work and to carry out his/her assigned duties. Repeated absences make this impossible.

              f


    There is no evidence that the Carrier was arbitrary, capricious or


                            3 '_,

discriminatory. ~Dismissal.is an appropriate discipline in these circumstan-

 ces. ,
 AWARD
 Claim denied.

                              4i~ 'I i

                              i

                              VI/I N

                              Neutral Member ,


                                                        a


                              ,carrier Member


                                rgan ation emb6r


Date: ~NE ~~ ~~

                            i . .


I 1