/r a
ri
 r'




























Form 1 Award No. 9845
 Page 2 Docket No. 10040
 2-EW-CR-184
The hearing was postponed and rescheduled for November 27, 1981. Although the Claimant had been properly notified of the original hearing date and the date for which it was rescheduled, he did not appear at the hearing. Consequently, the hearing was held in absentia. Following the hearing on November 27, 1981, by notice dated December 7, 1981, the Claimant was dismissed from service.
The Organization's position is that Claimant was dismissed from service without a fair and impartial trial in violation of Rule No. 6. Rule No. 6 provides in pertinent part:


The Organization contends that the Carrier's "misidentification" of the proceeding as a hearing rather than a trial constitutes a fatal defect in the procedure. Additionally, the Organization contends that the Claimant was further deprived of a fair and impartial trial when the hearing was conducted in Claimant's absence.
The Organization also contends that the Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof in demonstrating Claimant's guilt of the offense upon which his disciplinary penalty is based. Consequently, the Organization argues that the disciplinary action in this case is unjust, lacking in good faith, arbitrary and capricious, ~' without basis, unreasonable, and excessive.
The Carrier's position is that the labeling of the proceeding as a "hearing" rather than a "trial" is not a denial of Claimant's due process as the terms "trial ", "hearing", and "investigation" are synonymous in the railroad industry. The Carrier contends that Claimant's terminology argument is highly technical and, therefore, Claimant .bears the burden of proving, first, that the technical defect existed and, second, that the defect was prejudicial to Claimant's rights. The Carrier argues that the Claimant was not so prejudiced by the use of the term "hearing" and that he was afforded every right due him under the provisions of the controlling agreement.
The Carrier asserts that the evidence adduced at the trial proves the Claimant guilty of failing to cover his assignment from October 5, 1981, to October 28, 1981. Consequently, the Carrier argues that the discipline assessed was commensurate and fully warranted.
The Board finds no merit in Organiza-Lion's contention that because the hearing was held in absentia, Claimant was dismissed from service without a fair and impartial trial in violation o f Rule No. 6. The Organization admits that the Claimant was properly notified of the proceeding by the Carrier. Notice was sent by certified mail. Carrier had not received a receipt from the certified letter by date of hearing; therefore, the proceeding was postponed and rescheduled for November 27, 1981. Prior to this date, both certified letters were returned "uncl aimed ".
 Form 1 Award No. 9845
 Page 3 Docket No. 10040
 2-EW-CR-184
The Board finds that the Carrier met all of its requirements regarding notification to the Claimant. It has long been held that a Carrier is not the insurer that a notice is received by the employee. In support of this principle, Public Law Board No. 2067, Award No. 392, states:


The Board finds that the Claimant did not appear at the hearing and requested postponement thereof. The hearing was properly held in absentia. An employee's failure to appear for a hearing is at his own peril and he must live with the consequences. This principle is supported by Second Division Award No. 7844, which states:








Thus, the hearing was properly held in absentia.
The Board finds that the labeling of the proceeding as a "hearing" rather than as a "trial" is not a denial of due process. Furthermore, the labeling of the proceeding as a "hearing" did not prejudice the Claimant.
Numerous awards have recognized that the terms "trial", "hearing", and "investigation" are synonymous in the railroad industry. For example, First Division Award No. 13354 states:



Form 1 Award No. 9845
 Page 4 Docket No. 10040
 2-EW-CR-184
Moreover, Second Division Award No. 4348 states:
        "...The Organization is taking the position that the inquiry held on October 5 was not a 'hearing' because the Carrier denominated it an 'investigation'...In the context here used, the words 'investigation' and 'hearing' are synonymous... In the context of the circumstances of this case, the Board finds that the term 'hearing' is synonymous with the term 'trial'. Thus, the labeling of the proceeding as a 'hearing' in the notification to Claimant was not a denial of due process nor a violation of Rule No. 6."


The Board further finds that the evidence adduced at the trial proves the Claimant guilty as charged. At the hearing, assistant engineer Charles Johansen, who is in charge of compiling the attendance records of certain employees, including the Claimant's, testified that his records indicated that the Claimant was absent, with no call to the Carrier, on the following dates: October 5 to October 9, 1981; October 12 to October 16, 1981; and October 19 to October 23, 1981. Mr. F. Koval, Claimant's Foreman, testified that Claimant did not perform services from October 5 to October 28, 1981.
Mr. Edward Sinkevicz, who takes absentee calls, testified that on September 11, 1981, Claimant called and said he was off on personal business and would be in the next day. Mr.Sinkevicz further testified that Claimant never called again.
Thus, the Board finds that the evidence shows that the Claimant was guilty of excessive and unauthorized absence from October 5, 1981, to October 28, 1981.
The Board also finds that the discipline assessed by the Carrier was proper. Carrier need not tolerate Claimant's poor attendance habits. Aside from Claimant's unauthorized, excessive absence from October 5 through October 28, 1981, Claimant's attendance record, which is contained in the record, shows that he had been absent or left early on a total of 122 times in 1981. As stated in Second Division Award No. 5049:
        "Nothing in the agreement obligates the Carrier to attempt to operate its railroad with employees repeatedly unable or unwilling to work the regular and ordinarily accepted shifts, whatever reason or excuse exists for each absence..."


      Additonally, Second Division Award No. 7348 states:


        "When an employee is so consistently and habitually absent over a long period of time that his employment becomes a serious liability rather than an asset, Carrier is entitled to terminate his services."


      Finally, in Public Law Board No. 1324, Award No. 46, Referee Moore state:


        "This industry is a bit different than other industries in that employees must be available to perform service in order for the Carrier"' to operate the trains in an economical manner.

Form 1 Award No. 9845
 Page 5 Docket No. 10040
 2-EW-CR-184
 "This is one of the painful requirements of the employees of
 this industry, but it is recognized by many thousands of
 . employees who have performed this service and have been
 available for such service diligently over the years. If an
 employee cannot meet this requirement, he is in the wrong
 industry."
On the record in this case, it must be concluded that Claimant stands guilty as charged and that the discipline assessed was warranted and proper.
                        A W A R D


    Claim denied..


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        Nancy ~.ver - Executive Secretary,


Dated at Chicago, IZIinois, this 4th day of April, 1984