Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9212
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8915
 2-CMStP&P-CM-'82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in °
 addition Referee George V. Boyle when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada


Dispute: Claim of Employes:


That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to compensate Coach Cleaner Ann Williams for all lost time from April 4, 1979 to May 15, 19?9.

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

 The carrier or 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, 193+.

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

The Claimant was employed as a coach cleaner at the Western Avenue Coach Yard of the Carrier in Chicago, Illinois. After a hearing on Marsh 21, 1979 she was suspended for thirty (30) days for excessive absenteeism and lateness on six (6) days and for failure to notify the foreman within a reasonable length of time of being unable to protest her assignments on three (3) of those dates.

 The Employes, an behalf of the claimant assert that the hearing was improper, not fair, and impartial as required by virtue of the employe being unable to .attend due to illness. Therefore she was unable to testify in her own behalf.

 Further, they argue the carrier aid not postpone the hearing when requested, despite the knowledge of the claimant's legitimate reasons for her absence from the hearing.
 Form 1 Award No. 9212
 Page 2 Docket No. 8915



The Board finds, however, that none of these positions are sustainable from the record.

 While it is true that the claimant was not present at the hearing, she had been adequately notified of the postponed date. The Employes had requested a postponement from the initial one scheduled and it had been granted. The carrier offered an uncontested affidavit affirming that the claimant had admitted to receiving a letter to that effect and had stated that her reason for not appearing at her hearing oar March 21 was because her doctor's statement indicated that she need not return to work until March 26.

 The Board is not persuaded that her medical condition precluded both her attendance at the hearing and notification to the carrier that she would be unable to attend. On the contrary, her attendance and absentee record would indicate that her failure to notify the carrier of her impending absence was to be expected. As in the past she did not fulfill her obligation in this regard but, in that same affidavit, she is reported to have "felt that it was not necessary to contact my office requesting a postponement." Instead she simply presented herself on March 26 without contacting either the carrier or her union representative.

 With respect to the Employee's request for postponement, the carrier had postponed the initial hearing at the request and for the convenience of the Employes. On the day of the hearing the Local Chairman contacted the carrier indicating that he would be unable to attend and designated a committeeman as an alternate.

 The committeeman was present and requested a postponement simply because the local chairman was not present. The following exchange took place at 9:22 AM after waiting for the claimant to appear. Mr. Fuller, the conducting officer asks John Koss, committeeman representing Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada:







From this exchange it appears that the representative is reluctant to act in behalf of the 1-oval chairman in his absence. But his hesitancy or lack of confidenc(,,,,
 Form 1 Award No. 9212
 Page 3 Docket No. 8915
 2-CMStP&P-CM-'82

 is not a legitimate reason to postpone the hearing. Conceivably the hearing could be postponed indefinitely by successive statements of reluctance on his part.

 In so far as the question of the carrier sustaining the burden of proof, the Board must hold that there is more than sufficient evidence to sustain the carrier's action. For example, one six (6? month period in 1978 showed 85 days absent, i.e. about 801% of the time the claimant did not work. The carrier forbearance in this regard, in simply warning the claimant, is remarkable. The carrier's action in this case of penalizing the worker with thirty days suspension is warranted without any doubt.

    Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            SECOND DIVISION


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By ~ ~-

      Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant r


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of July, 1982,