Form l NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8055
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 80+7-I
 2-AT8aSF-I-' 79


Parties to Dispute:

Dispute: Claim of E3nployes:
    The claim of the employee is that he was wrongfuLl,y terminated from his employment by The Atchison,, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company on the 13th day of October, 1972, where he was employed as a caiman, and that he prays for reinstat,anent, and back pay for loss of earnings and all achex benefits.


Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier ox carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

    Parties to said dispute wee°e.given due notice of hearing thereon.


On October 13, 1972, Carrier., at the conclusion of an investigatory hearing at which neither Claimant nor his representative was present, terminated Claimant for a violation of Rule 16 of the General Rules for Guidance of Employees, (Foam 2626 Standards,) 1966. Claimant had not returned to duty at the conclusion of a medical leave of absence, and was terminated fox being absent from work without approvELl.

 The events that led up to this termination are complex. Even though they are outlined in minute detail in the voluminous record presented to this Board, a siumnary of the pertinent facts/events bears mention.

 Claimant was employed by Carrier in t.'faxch 1959 as a Freight Cayman
 Apprentice. He was promoted to Cayman on May 7, 1962. His employment record
 shows that he had a history of being absent from work without proper authority
 and had been assessed a -total of 110 demerits for such actions in a three-year
 period between June 1, 196+, and September 1967.
 Form 1 Award No. 8055
 Page 2 Docket No. 8047-I
 . 2-AT&SF-I-'79

 In April 1972, Claimant requested and received a 30-day medical leave of absence. He subsequently requested and received two additional 30-day extensions.

 On July 3, 1972, Claimant returned to work and worked for one month. On August 3, 1972, he was arrested by the Sheriff and left the property. He did not return to work after his arrest, nor did he inform Carrier of his whereabouts for about ten days. In the middle of August, Carrier received a request for a medical leave of absence, accompanied by a doctor's stateanent indicating illness. The leave was granted retroactive to August 4, 1972, and ending on September 4, 197?. Subsequent to the granting of this leave, Carrier received another request for a 60-day extension. This request was also accompanied by a Doctor's statement indicating that the reason for the requested leave of absence was illness.

 Questioning the validity of these leave requests, Superintendent of Shops Cantwell wrote Claimant on Seg;,ember 5, 1972, by certified retail, requesting that he come to his office and sign an authorization for Carrier to obtain medical information concerning his illness before his leave could be extended. The letter was returned unopened as unclaimed. Having received no response to this September 5 inquiry, Superintendent Cantwell granted Claimant a 30-day extension of his leave from September 5 to October 5, 1972, On September 27, a copy of the leave approval for the period September 5 to October 4, 1972, together with a second letter ;stating that a release authorizing Carrier to obtain medical information about his illness would be necessary if further leaves were to be considered, was sent via certified mail. This letter was also returned unopened and marked as unclaimed,

 . On October 5, 1972, Local Chairman Lyda was notified that Claimant had not responded to Carrier's request; for a medical release, nor had he been in contact with it about his leave termination or an extension. Carrier suggested that the Union see what it coLiLaL do to get Claimant to contact it and sign the medical authorization form.

 Local Chairman Lyda and Vice Local Chairman Blankenship visited Claimant at his home on October 6, 19'72. Among other things, they indicated to him that he should go to the office and sign the appropriate forms so that his leave could be extended beyond the October 5 termination date. Claimant said he would, but, upon checking the next day, hyda discovered that Claimant had not contacted the Superintendent's office, :Gyda and Blankenship returned the following day to Claimant's home and again pointed out the seriousness of the situation and again told Claimant to contact the office and take care of the situation. Claimant did not respond to this second request.

 On October 10, 1972, Superintendelt Cantwell., by certified letter to Claimant, put him on notice that an investigation into his failure to return to work at the conclusion of his leave on October 5, 1972, would be held on October 13, 1972. Lyda also received a copy of this letter.
 Form 1 Award No. 8055
 age 3 Docket No. 8047=I
 . 2-AT8oSF-I-' 79

 The hearing was convened on October 13, 1972, Neither Claimant or the Vocal Chairman appeared at the hearing. The hearing was concluded on the wane day, and a recomendation to terminate Claimant was the result. Claimant was notified by certified mail of the results of the Bearing -- his termination from employment. Both the letter giving notice of the hearing and the results of the hearing were returned to the Superintendent's office unopened and marked unclaimed.

 Claimant subsequently learned of his termination from a hospital clerk, who asked him who would pay his hospital bills, since the hospital had been informed
 that his hospital insurance hac! been cancelled. The cancellation was due to
 his termination by the Carrier. After a series of exchanges between Claimant
 and Carrier officials and International Union officials, Claimant brought
 suit in federal count against Carrier for improper discharge and against the
 Union for failure to represent him properly.
 The case was eventually heard and decided by Judge Richard D. Ropers,
 United States District Court, District of Kansas, Civil Action No. 74-162-05, By
 a decision dated T4ay 17, 1978, Judge Ropers ordered the case against Carrier
 and the Union stayed, die ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration
 before the Railway Adjustment Board, Second Division. Claimant brought the
 instant proceeding as an individual and was represented by Counsel at an oral
 hearing before this Board at its Chicago offices on July 17, 1979·
 Claimant of'f'ered as a defense in the record before this Board and through
 his attorney at the oral hearing the fact that he at no tune was aware of
 Carrier's desire to have him axpear at the Superintendent's office or sign a
 medical information release. At no time did he realize that his leave was
 to terminate on October 5, 1972, (He was under the impression that a 60-day
 leave had been granted, since the Doctor had requested a 60-day leave and not
 a 30-day leave, which Carrier granted). At no time was he made aware that a
 hearing was to be held or that his employment was in jeopardy. To support this
 defense, Claimant points to the fact that the certified letters from
 Carrier informing him about its desire for more medical information and
 providing him with information about the length of his final leave and the date
 of the investigation into his absence were never received by him. Claimant
 further contends that when the Union officials visited him at his home on
 October 6 and 7, they at no time stated that he had to go to the Superintendents
 office to sign a medical authorization or that his job was in jeopardy. They
 also did not indicate that an investigation would ensue if he did not make
 arrangements for an extension of his leave. Claimant contends that he did not
 go to the Superintendent's office, but rather went to the hospital office
 where he had arrays gone to obtain leaves of absence. In his mind, he took
 care of his obligation.by a visit to the hospital office. There, he asked a
 clerk in the office to make sure that the Superintendent's office received
 a new application for leave giving more details about his illness.
This Board, after a thorough review of the voluminous record before it and a review of the arguments presented by Claimant's counsel at the oral hearing, finds the Claimant's defense of his actions lacking.
 Form l Award No. 8055
 Page 4 Docket No. 8047-I
 2 AT8oSF-I- t 79

 By his own testimony as recorded in an affidavit developed for the legal proceeding in this case, Claimant testified that he was at home each day during the months of September and October. As far as he knew, all mail delivered to his home was claiined by either his wife, his children, or himself. At no tune was he aware of arty certified mail being delivered to his home nor was he aware that the mail carrier had left a notice in his mailbox that certified mail should be claimed by him at the post office. Claimant's testimony on this point runs contrary to statements made by letter carriers who attempted to deliver mail to Claimant's home. These letter carriers stated that they attempted to deliver the mail, that they knocked on Claimant's door, that they received no response, and that they subsequently left the required notice of certified mail in Claimant's mailbox. These certified letters were eventually returned to Carrier as unclaimed.

 This Board., after a review of the record before it, can only conclude that the mail was delivered to Claimant's home, that he was aware of this delivery, and that he chose to ignore these attempts at correspondence from his employer. For whatever reason, Claimant chose not to accept this mail at his own peril. He cannot now be hoard to claim that he was not aware of the content of these letters because he chose not to accept them. Carrier in this instance had reasonable cause to obtain medical information about Claimant and made a reasonable attempt by mail and through the local chairman to contact him. Two 'Union officials testified under oath that the Company's message was relayed by them to Claimant, that he appeared to understand what was required of him, and that a sense of urgency existed. Claimant was told that he should inanediately take care of the situation. He, in turn, characterizes these conversations as casual, nondefinitive, and general in nature.

 The record before us does not lend itself to that interpretation. Claimant in this case has the burden of proving that he was not aware of the Carrier's attempt to contact him and that he was rot aware of what was required of him in order to extend his leave. The record clearly demonstrates that Claimant has failed by any standard to carry that burden.

 Claimant was not involved in a dispute with his employer for the first time. His record indicates that he had numerous confrontations with Carrier. He was formerly involved in at least two disciplinary hearings, he received aver 100 demerits for absences s~ri_thout authorization, and he participated in civil legal proceedings.

 He was not naive and uninformed. He should have been fully aware of his obligation to his employer. He made a conscious decision to do nothing and to b e evasive. His claim that he did not understand what was required of him after two conversations with the Union officials, and two attempts at delivery of certified mail from his Employer., must fail.
 Form 1 Page 5

 Award No. 8055
 Docket No. 8047-I
 2-AT8aSF-I- `7g

 Claimant asserts that since he was not present at the October 13., 1972, investigatory hearing, nor represented at that hearing, he was denied a fair and impartial hearing. This argument also must fail. Claimant's failure to accept his certifie:d mail announcing the date of the hearing was an overt action on his part. He kept himself uninformed about the hearing and did not attend it at his crwn peril. His failure to be present or to be represented was a result of his own actions and cannot be considered as a basis to set aside his termination on the grounds that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing. This Board has so observed in numerous cases on this point.

 The factual findings of the investigation are not in dispute. Claimant did not report for work at the: conclusion of his leave on October 5, 1972, He was absent from duty without proper authorization in violation of Rule 16, as charged. His past record of absenteeism was poor. Carrier, based on the events of the two and one-half.' months preceeding the investigation, the results of the investigation, and Claimant's past/ attendance record, chose to texTainate the grievant. This Board has consistently held that absenteeism is a serious offense and has repeatedly pointed to its detrimental effect on the operation of railroads. We, therefore, cannot fault Carrier when it takes action to deter such behavior. (We need only cite a few of marry such cases on this subject to reinforce our position in this case - Second Division Awards 6710, 6240, 5835, 6706; Second Division 6499, citing Third Division Award 13127; Secant. Division Avard 6921; Third Division Award 20113.

 While this Board concurs with Carrier's position that Claimant's charges against his Union are not germane to a decision in this case, the actions of the two Union officials did have some bearing on our decisions and are worthy of mention. The Local Chairman immediately contacted Claimant when he was informed that a 'problem existed. He followed up to see if Claimant had acted. When he discovered that he had not, he immediately contacted Claimant a second time. Claimant, by his own actions and his evasive behavior., brought about his termination.

 A WAR D

 Claim denied on all counts.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By ,~ /

      emarie Brasc - Administrative Assistant


Dd t
 ate:7 Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of August, 1979·