(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way F_mployes PA~j TiES ~'O DI,S~UTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAI M:

      1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when on September 21, 1998, the

          Carrier dismissed Mr. D. Tankersley for allegedly violation of Rule 1.15

          of the Maintenance of Way Operating Rules, effective August 1, 1996, in

          connection with his alleged failure to report for duty at the designated

          time and place on August 12, 1998, while assigned as trackman on TP

          12.


      2. As a consequence of the Carrier's violation referred to above, Claimant

shall be reinstated to his former position with seniority restored, he shall
 be paid for all wages lost and discipline shall be removed from his
 record.
 FINDING S

Upon the whole record and ail the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein ars carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board is duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.

On August 12, 1998, Claimant was scheduled to report to work at 6:00 AM. He did not report, nor did he bother to advise anyone in authority that he was going to be absent and why.

The Carrier scheduled an Investigation and held same without Claimant who had not asked for an extension, nor had he contacted his representative about his intent.

Following the Investigation, the Carrier dismissed Claimant from service. The discipline may appear harsh for a veteran with some 26 plus years of service, but after reviewing Claimant's record, it is the only recourse left. Claimant has not learned from prior disciplinary sessions having numerous suspensions, including two discharges, all because Claimant was

`'e_6 /V~_) _5~550 Award No. /o-)
 Case No. 102

 Page 2

 awoi, or he walked off the job or he left the job early without permission. In fact, Claimant's rap-shoot takes up 1 'la pages.
 Thera was some speculation that Claimant may have entered a detox program, yet no one, including Claimant's son, knew where he was at. Even if Claimant did enter such a program, this of and by itself is not sufficlent to mltigate the discipline assessed.

                          AWARD


Claim denied.

                          ORDER

This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(sj not be made.

 Robert L. Hicks, Chairman & Neutral Member

 Rick 13. Wehrli, Labor Member

 Dated: mw. J. .1R If 1 °I cl y

 Thomas M. Rohling, Car r Member

 CEivEa 00 1 `d 1999