Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28774
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-29281
 91-3-90-3-181
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Joseph A. Sickles when award was rendered.

 (Ernest E. Hicks PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "On the reappeal of Ernest E. Hicks, on grounds of the unjust action taken against him, that lead to the deflamation of his charater and termination of his job with Amtr participated in the theft of Amtrak passenger baggage and arranging for disposal of stolen items for
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.

On November 11, 1988, Carrier notified the Claimant of an Investigation on charges that he had a baggage and participated in disposal of stolen property. In addition, he was charged with allegedly selling and using controlled substances while on duty.
which was recessed. Thereafter, a certified letter forwarded to the Claimant
 (establishing a Hearing resumption date of,'January 10, 1989) was received and
 signed for. -

 The Claimant was not present at the January 10, 1989, resumption; had made no prior request for a postponement, nor did he state any prior objection to the Hearing date. The Hearing proceeded "in absentia."
 Form 1 Award No. 28774
 Page 2 Docket No. MS-29281
 91-3-90-3-181

 The Carrier has argued that this Board may not now entertain this appeal since the Claimant did not submit his "notice of intent" within the prescribed time limitations. Without regard to the numerous Awards of this Board which have demanded a strict compliance with the requirement of a timely submission, we will dispose of this dispute on its merits.

 To be sure, there was some hearsay evidence submitted into the record. However, there was also direct, first-hand evidence presented. The record, taken as a whole, contains a sufficient showing to warrant approval of the Carrier's action.

 The Organization did seek a postponement at the January 10, 1989, Hearing when it became apparent that the Claimant was not present. We do not feel that there was an abuse of discretion when that motion was denied. Even if there was some compelling reason for the Claimant to refuse to testify at that time, it was surely his responsibility to notify the Carrier prior to the Hearing, or at least attend on the day of the Hearing to state his reason. The Claimant failed to do so; nor did he notify his representative of his intention not to attend. Under the circumstances of this record, when an Employee is aware of charges against him, and is aware of the Hearing date, and then fails to attend, he surely does so at his own peril. He may not merely disregard the Investigation and then seek a "de novo" Hearing before this tribunal, which was the request in this case.

        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        an J. PtOW -.Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day'of April 1991.