Robert S. Peterson. Referee


E. L. Boyar PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
                (Oonso7idated Rsil corporation


3TAMEM ar CLAM "H" Consolidated Hail Corporation failed to observed
 the conditions of the agreed upon policy regarding =
 authorised absences by nfKasomble axem·cise cf managerial discretion and
 inconsistency in applying the policy such that H. L. Boyer ought to be
 returned to &=vice without loss o! cascpeasatioa, seniority and vacation
 sights, and to eaJoy those benefits and privileges that he enjoyed prior
 to his fig sadsaslr Additionally, vas a. L. Hater given proper notice of
 the hearing of Jhty 19, 1928! Came: 8. L. Boyar v. Consolidated Rail
 Corporation Came Docket SD 400, Bastern Hegicn-8arr3sbvrg Division."

                OPINION OF BOAS: The claist herein arises bras Claimant's dismissal isam

Oasrier's service an August 1, 1978 account absenteeism. The record stews that an June 29, 19'(8 Claimant vas absent tray work without Permission. It vas Qaiaaat's third aasatharised absence within s nine-month period. In this regard, provisions et a 19't3 Agreement between the (terries and the Hrothmhoad Of Msiateaaace Of Stay Heployes, azd to which Claimant wns subjects, a progressive system of discipline for absenteeism provides, "esployees who ate band guilty o? maqd%oxized absence free work tar the third time within a 22-month period shall be subject to diseiassl Iran ser~i.ce."

 In keeping with the above mentioned Agreement, Claimant was notified by certified mail, return receipt requested to his last knosn ad. dress, to attend a company trial an July 19, 1978 to determine has responsibility in =motion with s charge which shad: "Being absent without permi 1978. (Third Offense)" Claimant did not appear at the trial sod it vas held in absentia.

 At the hearing Carrier introduced probative evi4ance of its notification of the trial to Qaimant, including testimony that Claimant had additionally been notified verbally he had a letter to pick up at the post office. The Carrier also introduced into evidence testimony establishing the fact claimant had not requested permission .to be off the day in question and that there had been no request for a postponement of the trial.
                  Award Number 24160 Page 2

                  Docket Number MS-24057


In his presentation to this Board, the Claimant made allegations suggesting discriminatory treatment, but we are satisfied from our review of the whole record and Carrier's response to such matter that there is no basis in fact to the Claimant's charge. The record is this use not disclosing or giving us any indication that Carrier vas discriminatory in its treatment of Claimant, or that its actions were arbitrary or unreasonable, this Board firms no reason to hold that the (terrier failed to observe the conditions of the agreed upon policy, or Agreement, regarding unauthorized absences b discretion and inconsistency in applying that policy as Agreement to Claimant Boyar. We likewise find no basis to hold that Claimant had not been given proper notice of the hearing of July 19, 1978. Claimant's agreement rights to a trial were fully observed. He vas given due notice and ample opportunity to attend a hearing and explain the reasons for his unauthorized absence. The fact he vas sat present for the hearing due to his own conduct cannot be considered as having denied him the benefit of the spirit and intent of a fair and impartial trial.

 Every employs is obliged by the employment relationship to report for nark with a high degree of regularity. This obligation is stronger in the case of an employs who, like Claimant, is governed by and familiar with the nature and severity of penalties which can be imposed for an unauthorized abse tried and disciplined for past absences, end it must be assnDed he vas aware that a third unauthorized absence within the 12-month period subjected him to imposition o Under the circumstances, it was therefore incumbent upon Claimant to have made every effort to get to work, or, having failed to do so, to lava made certain he was going to be at a hearing that he knew would follow such absence from work to substantiate the reasons fns his not reporting fair work*

 For the reasons given above, Claimant's request for reinstatement and compensation must be denied.

 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;

                  Award Number 2160 page 3

                  Docket Number M3.24057


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively (terrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Acts as approved June 21j. 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 denied.


                          RATIONAL RAILROAD ADMEMMT BOARD

                          By Order af Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

    '"''


BY it 0 0 610L. SG.&
        Rosem0.rie s - five Assistant


Dated at Chicago., Ill.iaois., this 15th day of February 1983.