Case No. 27 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 Appeal of the Carrier's dismissal of Claimant J.W. Rushing on charges that the Claimant allegedly violated Carrier Rules by being excessively absent when the Claimant allegedly failed to report to his assignment on December 9, 12, 13, and 14, 2005, and by allegedly failing to follow supervisory instructions to call if the Claimant was not going to report to work. FINDINGS:
 By letter dated December 19, 2005, the Claimant was notified to attend a formal hearing and investigation on charges that the Claimant allegedly had violated Carrier Rules on excessive absenteeism when the Claimant failed to report to his assignment as Trackman in Memphis, Tennessee on December 9, 12, 13, and 14, 2005, and by allegedly failing to follow supervisory instructions to call if he was not going to report for work. After a postponement, the investigation was conducted on January 13, 2006. By letter dated January 27, 2006, the Claimant was notified that as a result of the investigation, he had been found guilty as charged and was being dismissed from the Carrier's service. The Organization thereafter filed a claim on behalf of the Claimant, challenging the Carrier's decision to discharge him. The Carrier denied the claim.
 The Carrier initially contends that the record shows that the Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial investigation. The Carrier insists that more than substantial evidence supports the findings of the Hearing Officer, and dismissal was warranted. The Carrier

                                                PL6®43


                                              ~c>~cd d 7


argues that the dismissal was assessed in this case after full consideration of the

 (~laimanY~c r,arcn_ol r n,..a
 .,._ ____ _~ ~ t .vlwuullecvlu.
 The Carrier asserts that the Organization is incorrect in contending that "dismissal was unwarranted, unjust, excessive and in violation of the Agreement." The Carrier insists that this matter was handled properly and within the Agreement guidelines. The Carrier argues that the Organization also is incorrect in asserting that the "measure of discipline [was] inappropriate and absent the principle of progressiveness." The Carrier emphasizes that it gave full consideration to the Claimant's personal record before assessing the discipline in question.
 The Carrier ultimately contends that the instant claim should be denied in its entirety.
 The Organization initially contends that the decision to dismiss the Claimant was unwarranted, unjust, excessive, and in violation of the A ar.f-mant TAP Oraanivatinn asserts that the record does not support the Carrier's decision to impose the most severe

 1P\7p1 of rlieninl;nA ~, nha,-..o~ f1,-4 4- 0i-ma-. ___.... _t____1 r____ __..,r_ r,
 . ,~ _ =1, 11 v=1,.11cu6Co Mat uW ~1a11110.11L was dUJG11L HUM wvik for jour (jays ar1Q
 did not call his supervisor. The Organization maintains that the Claimant was honest and
 rvrtncouung at me investigation. moreover, the Organization argues that the incident
 required a full, fair, and thorough investigation of all elements that may have contributed
 to the absenteeism, and the Organization emphasizes that it is ready to cooperate in
 developing reasonable efforts to safeguard against another such event. The Organization
 insists that the Carrier's decision to discharge the Claimant was neither fair nor
 reasonable.
                                                A~d 7


    The Organization argues that it is well established within the railroad industry that


the nn~nnc~ nf!'licrinlir,a ie nnf +n ;_n;n+,._,.__L.w,e..+ 1...++.. .-.,1,..1.:7;+.,+,. .. ...,+ -_,7
 ....... 1.».1, _., ~ . l.~,a,v au uvu w uutt.V Yu1UJU111V,.11V, UUV UV M1QU111lam, ColNCl. WIG

 guide employees in the proper performance of their assigned tasks. The Organization
 points out that the Board consistently leas held that the severity of the punishment must be
 reasonably related to the gravity of the offense. The Organization recognizes the
 Carrier's concern in the connection with the alleged infraction, but maintains that the
 penalty of dismissal is improper, arbitrary, and harsh in light of the nature of the incident
 and the non-progressive nature of the discipline. The Organization emphasizes that the
 Claimant was dismissed well before the Carrier applied all of the progressive disciplinary
 steps, so the Carrier clearly imposed non-progressive discipline without a chance to
 rehabilitate. The Organization maintains that the Board consistently has recognized that
 progressive discipline is both essential and important in the railroad industry.

 The Organization ultimately contends that the instant claim should be sustained in its entirety.

      T lie patties being 11nahip 4n racnl,r- thA;r (l;cr._+o +h;~ *..._++o,... o I'd- +1_..

      ____ r__.___ ___._a __ ,." .__~_," ,, "a~ ua_ruw, luto tuc««a ~atia~ U~tVt~ Ut1J


Board.

      ml_;s no_._a ,___ __ , ,,

.111J zavalu has icvicweu me evidence and testimony in this case, and we find that there is sufficient evidence to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of excessive absenteeism when he failed to report to his assignment as trackinan on

 December 9, 12, 13, and 14, 2005. The record also reveals that the Claimant failed to follow supervisory instructions that he was to call if he was not going to be reporting for work on a day that he was scheduled.

                            3

                                              -P L.


                                              a®6erd D'?


      Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in the record to


    n,-F Oho m ;1h., 11,1.7;.... ..4 ,-~.. au.~l.a:.,.., 4.. aL...w ,.C .7:,...:.-7:._.. : ._.1

Supp~ u~ gui1Ly 1u n.u116_ "wc ncnL u.uu Our aucuuuu Lu WU LYPU Ui uiaWYiiuc Hiiposcu. This Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its actions to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
 The record reveals that the Claimant in this case had previously received a oneday suspension for not reporting to work per Rule 33A on December 31, 2003; a threeday suspension for not reporting to work per Rule 33A on February 25, 2004; and a Letter of Reprimand informing him of his excessive absenteeism after having missed fourteen unauthorized days in the year 2005 by August 2, 2005. In addition, the Claimant received a five-day suspension on October 5, 2005, for failing to report for work. Given that previous disciplinary background, this Board cannot find that the Carrier acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously when it terminated the Claimant. Contrary to the position of the Organization, the record reveals that the Claimant was; affnrdecl progressive discipline and failed to improve his attendance. The Carrier had just cause to

 farmin~tn chic. ft.;,.,.._..,* Tt,....,.F .._ A_. D.._...1 r._.7,. *L~.~L~ ~I~:- ._ ~ L_ .1....:_.7
 ..... = u ~ ~ ~ u~.~.~. ~~c~civic, uic ~~aiu imus uiaL uic LAMM iiiuSL uc uciiicu.

 AWARD:

      The claim is denied.


                    PE R.R. MEY RS

                      Neutral Member


          ION MFMRRR


DATED:
                            4