(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Eaployes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
                (Burlington Northern Railroad Company


STATEMENT CF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The dismissal of Sectionman Michael E. Wilkie for alleged violation of 'Rule qQ28' was uxararraated and wholly disproportionate to the charge leveled against him (system File T-rc-3o2c).

 (2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered beginning February 21, 1980
OPINION OF BOARD: The pertinent facts are uncontested. Claimant failed to
 report to work on January 14, 1980 after taking a one week vacation. When Claimant consistently !ailed to protect his assignments during the period from January 14, 1980 to January 25, 1980, the Carrier seat Claimant . a certified letter ordering him to report to work by February 1, 1980. In the letter, the Carrier explicitly warned Claimant that if he failed to report on February 1, 1980, he would be subjected to disciplinary action. During the period of Claimant's absence, the Carrier's Roadmaster attempted to contact Claimant at a local alcoholic rehabilitation and treatment center but he was told Claimant had voluntarily left without completing the treatment program. Claimant did not report to duty on February 1, 1980.

 By notice dated February 5, 1980, the Carrier scheduled as investigation to determine it Claimant had disobeyed proper instructi to report to work am February 1, 1980. Qeiment did not attend the.iavestigatioa which was held on Fe dismissed Claimant.

 In spite of receiving proper notification of the February 3.3s, 1980 investigation., Clgimant failed to appear at the investigation to defend himself. Claimant was absent each working day after January 14, 1980 and furthermore, he did not call the Carrier to explain his continued and unauthorized absence. On the other head, the Carrier made every reasonable effort to contact Claimant but was unsuccessful. Thus, the Carrier has proved that Claimant comnitted the charged offense.

 The Organization argues that the penalty of dismissal was excessive. However, the record contains ample evidence that Claimant did not show any interest is retainer his fob. Due to the seriousness of the offense as well as Claimant's apathetic attitude, we must uphold the discipline.
 Award Number 24199
 Docket Number MW-24137

 Page 2

        FINDINGS: The Third. Division of the Adjustment Boards upon the whole record sad all the evtdencej, finds aid holds:


That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier sad Employee within the messing of the Railway Labor Acts as approved June 21p 1934;

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

 That the Agreement was not violated.

 Maim denied.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS24MT HOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago., Illinois., this 14th day of :larch 1983.

 EIVCp