Mopac File 247-7011


Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 to and
 Dispute: Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

 Statement
 of Claim: 1. Carrier violated the effective Agreement when
 Trackman Fred Salsbury was unjustly dismissed
 on June 18, 1985.
 2. Claimant Salsbury shall now be reinstated to service with seniority, vacation, pass, and all rights accruing to him with pay for all time lost account his dismissal on June 18, 1985. Findings: The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated January 5, 1959, that it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, and that the parties were given due notice ofthe hearing held.
 Claimant, was employed as a Trackman on Track Gang 5276 headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. lie had previously been dismissed from service for a prior incident of unauthorized absenteeism. Claimant was conditionally reinstated to service on a leniency basis, on May 9, 1985. In connection therewith a written agreement was executed and signed by Claimant with the Employee's Assistance Counselor. Therein he had agreed to the following conditions:
                      -2- ward No. 246


            "1. To abstain from all alcoholic beverages and/or mood altering substances


            2. Hr will initiate andmaintain contact with the Employee's Assistance Program on a I>i-monthly basis


            ;. IIL- will attend at least two meetings of Alcoholic Anonymous each week


            i. IIc understands this agreement supersedes any previous agreement

          6. Ile will not have unexcused absences."

Claimant was unauthorizedly absent on May 14, 15, lb and 17, 1985. The Division Engineer as a result issued a notice to Claimant to attend a formal investigation in light of his repeated refraction. As a result thereof Carrier concluded that he was guilty as charged. Claimant was dismissed from service as discipline therefor.
 The Board finds that Claimant was accorded the due process to which entitled under his Discipline Rule.
 There was sufficient evidence adduced to support Carrier's conclusion as to Claimant's guilt. He signed an agreement. By his "unexcused" absence Claimant had violated Item 6 of the above quoted agreement. Such absence was not authorized. Claimant stands where he is as the result of his own failure.
 Inlight of Claimant's previous record the Board finds that the decision is reasonable. Award: Claim denied.
 SBA 279 -3_ Award No. 246

              :Mristte, Fniployee Member . S anno , Carrier Member


                  A'r1h--r T. Van Wart, airman

                  and Neutral Member


            Issued August 23, 1986.