FORM 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28207
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-28373
 89-3-88-3-159
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Soo Line Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

1. Carrier's action in the dismissal from service of Ms. A. M. Clancy, Clerk-Typist, Chicago, IL, effective November 16, 1984, was excessive, arbitrary and capricious.

 2. Ms. A. M. Clancy shall have her record cleared of all charges which have been placed against her as a result of this case.

 3. Ms. A. M. Clancy shall be reinstated to the service of the carrier with seniority and other rights umimpaired.

 4. Ms. A. M. Clancy shall be compensated for all wages and other losses sustained account her dimissal."

 FINDINGS:

 The Third 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 employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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

It was alleged in the Carrier's charges against the Claimant that she failed to protect her assignment, vacated her position without authority and was insubordinate. Following a formal Investigation held on November 15, 1984, Claimant was found guilty and dismissed from service to the Carrier.

 In representing the Claimant the Organization requested and was granted an appeal Hearing. Carrier subsequently reaffirmed its decision to dismiss the Claimant. During further progression of this Claim on the property, the Carrier proposed or eligibility for a separation offer. The Carrier proposal was not accepted.
 Form 1 Award No. 28207
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-28373
 89-3-88-3-159

 The Board finds no violation of Rule 22 of the Agreement in that the Rule does not prohibit the Carrier from an Investigation as conducted herein. Although the organization argues that Claimant did not receive proper notice, the record substantiates that Claimant failed to notify Carrier of her new address until after the Investigation. Carrier cannot be held responsible for Claimant's failure.

 This Board's review of the record finds substantial probative evidence to support the Carrier's and under flextime procedures was required to work until 6:00 P.M. Claimant said she would not work past 5:00 P.M. Claimant requested first that she be docked the time and thereafter stated she would get sick. Claimant then requested a leave of absence was instructed to complete her required shift until 6:00 PM. which she refused. Claimant left her po
The Board finds that Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial Investigation. The probative evi
The only question left for this Board's consideration is the imposed discipline. The Board notes that Claimant was offered reinstatement on August 25, 1986, and the offer was not accepted. We also note that there is no record of any previous infra other rights unimpaired, but without backpay. Claimant should have accepted the Carrier's offer when it was first made.




                              By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of November 1989.