Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28308
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-27733
 90-3-87-3-365
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.

 (Willie Bady PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "Under Rule 21A, whether Mr. Bady improperly absented himself from work for fourteen (14) or more consecutive days without properly notifying his supervisor. Mr. Bady contends that he was unable to work do (sic) to a physical disability, and that of possible dismissal were inadequate. Mr. Bady brings this action in Appeal under the procedures of Rule 74."

 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.

The record indicates that Petitioner suffered an on-the-job injury on December 17, 1985. He injured the ring finger of his left hand. According to Petitioner, he was under a physician's care until March 4, 1986, due to that injury. The record indicates further that Claimant made no contact with Carrier subsequent to his in letter dated February 21, 1986, which invoked the provisions of Rule 21-A. That Rule provides:



Form 1 Award No. 28308
 Page 2 Docket No. MS-27733
 90-3-87-3-365

It appears further that Carrier sent Claimant certified letters on January 17 and 27, 1986, in an effort to ascertain his status and arrange for a physical examination. Both letters were returned unclaimed. The letter (to the same address) of February 21, 1986, resulted in a meeting on March 5, 1986, during which Claimant presented a letter from his physician which stated:

That letter was dated March 4, 1986.

 The Organization contends that Carrier's action in terminating Claimant was harsh and improper. not given proper notice of the required physical examinations and therefore Carrier acted improperly in invoking the provisions of Rule 21-A. It is also argued that Carrier was aware of Claimant's condition since it was caused by an onduty incurred injury.

 Carrier makes a number of procedural arguments with respect to the handling of this Claim on the property. More importantly, Carrier argues that Claimant was properly considered to have resigned from service in accordance with Rule 21-A since he absented himself from service for more than 14 consecutive days without noti there was no evidence presented that Claimant was prevented from notifying his supervisor of his absence and status due to physical incapacity or other circumstances beyond his co
In view of the Board's findings with respect to the merits, it would serve no useful purpose to deal with the procedural arguments.

 It is the Board's view that Carrier properly considered Claimant as having resigned from service when he failed to notify his supervisor of his status and absented himself for fourteen consecutive days. Claimant has not presented any evidence that he was physically unable to provide such notice or that he was prevented from giving such notice by circumstances beyond his control (see Third Divisio does not absolve him from the responsibility to notify his supervisor of his absence. Contrary to the Organization's position with respect to the nonreceipt of the two certified this case was Claimant's failure to abide by his contractual obligations, not any alleged failure of the Carrier. Rule 21-A has self-invoking provisions and penalty. The Claim must be denied.
 Form 1 Award No. 28308
 Page 3 Docket No. MS-27733
 90-3-87-3-365




                          By Order of Third Division


                  00,


Attest: .0 z
 4aZnlclyl~v -Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of March 1990.