According to the Claimant, he had a bad day on June 12, 1991. He reported late for work, allegedly owing to a flat tire on his car. At the end of the day, while on Carrier property, his car was disabled after suffering damage from another vehicle. Again according to the Claimant, his car's unavailability caused his necessary absence from work for more than a week thereafter.

On June 20, 1991, the Claimant was subject to an investigative hearing as to his absences on June 12, 13, and 14. He was present, -1-

although tardy, for the hearing. As a result, he was assessed a l0-day disciplinary suspension, notice of which was sent to him by letter of June 28, 1991.

On June- 28, 1991, the Claimant was subject to a further investigative hearing as to his absences on June 18, 19, 20. (The record indicates he was also absent on Monday, June 17, but was not charged therefor.) As noted above, he did appear at the first investigative hearing on June 20, although he did not report for work that day. As a result of this, he was assessed a 15-day disciplinary suspension, notice of which was sent to him by letter

however, is that there were two separate penalties for what was clearly known to the Carrier as one continuous absence. Only one penalty was warranted, and the Board determines that a 15-day suspension is appropriate. The Claimant shall be made whole from the remaining 10days' suspension.

A WAR D