(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Long Island Rail Road Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of





OPINION OF BOARD: =he Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Long Island Railroad is
 based on the contention that "Carrier did not prove its charges" against
 Claimant, alleging he was absent without authorization on July 25 and 26,
 1973.

 The uncontradicted testimony of Mr. McGough (R35) is that Claimant was absent from work without authorization on July 25 and 26, 1973. His testimony was hearsay. Under ordinary circumstances where questions of fact are in dispute, we would be inclined to give little, if any, weight to 'hearsay evidence. In the instant case, however, neither Claimant nor Brotherhood has stated unequivocally anywhere in the entire record that Claimant in fact came to work on dates involved. Moreover, on review of the entire record, this Board finds no unequivocal denial by Claimant or the Brotherhood that claimant was in fact absent on dates involved. Under the circumstances in this particular case, we think the hearsay evidence, although weak, is nevertheless .-;rims facie sufficient to shift the burden of going forerard with the proof onto the Claimant. This burden of going forward with the evidence -ras not met. Rule 59 of Agreement provides in part: ***"employes shall not be susrended or dismissed from service :without a fair and impartial trial." The requirement is that the trial shall be fair and impartial. The trial is not a criminal proceeding and strict rules of evidence do not apply so long as due process in respecting the fundamental rights of an accused are present. The record in this case shows no .'.-nic,;.l of due process.

 Absenteeism is a serious matter. As stated :,. Award No. 14601 (Ives):
                    Docket Number SG-20374


        "Unauthorized absences from duty, if proven, are serious offenses, and often result in dismissal from ser·:ice.'r


No =itigating circumstances are present in the record before us. The record shows that the Carrier attempted unsuccessfully to apply preventive discipline and leniency to Claimant by reinstating him for prior absenteeism only 20 days before the
On careful consideration of the entire record in this particular case, the Board finds that the Carrier's decision to dismiss Grievant was not arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious, unsupported by the record, or excessive.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim is denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST!' BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: A,7& PAVZ_~
          Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, il'inois, this 8th day of November 1974.