At the time of his dismissal, the Claimant had some 16 years of service with the Carrier. His prior service record was also provided for the record.

The thrust of the Organization's challenge to the discipline in question is aimed at the fact that the Investigation was held in absentia. In the Organization's view, this violated the Claimant's right to a fair and impartial Hearing per Rule 45.

Our review of the record shows that the Organization's procedural objection must be rejected. It is undisputed that the Claimant received actual notice of the Hearing originally scheduled for March 5,1998. On that scheduled date, the Claimant contacted the Carrier and requested a postponement. He also asked that he be notified by mail of the rescheduled date. He provided no updated information regarding his mailing address. The Claimant also asked that the Hearing be relocated from Portola to Oroville, California, for his convenience. The Carrier, accordingly, rescheduled the Hearing for March 9 in Oroville. It mailed the rescheduling correspondence to the Claimant's last known address. Because a weekend intervened, Carrier representatives also hand delivered copies to the Claimant's Post Office Bo: on Friday, March 6. In addition, the Carrier attempted to telephone the Claimant, but found his phone had been disconnected. The Claimant's Organization representative had his copies of the rescheduling letters and appeared for the Investigation at the designated date and time. The parties waited to begin the Hearing for approximately one hour before the Hearing Officer proceeded in absentia. The record does not show any attempted contact by the Claimant with either the Carrier or his Organization representative to explain his absence from the Hearing or to request a further postponement. Nor is there any evidence of any circumstances that prevented the Claimant from contacting the Carrier or the Organization at any time prior to the issuance of the Carrier's decision.

By its express language, Rule 45 did not require more, in terms of notification to the Claimant, than the Carrier provided. Accordingly, we do not find the Carrier to have violated these procedural requirements of the parties' Agreement. Moreover, it is well settled in this industry, that a properly notified employee may not avoid disciplinary consequences by failing to attend an Investigation. See, for example, Third Division Awards 28774, 29497, 32935, and 34048.

The record contains substantial evidence in support of each item of misconduct charged. While all are important, the falsification of his time claim and his extensive absence without authority are especially egregious. Given the nature of the misconduct involved and the Claimant's past record, which includes significant prior discipline, we do not find the Carrier's action to be unreasonable or an abuse of its discretion. To the contrary, the Carrier's action is in keeping with its UPGRADE disciplinary program. Accordingly, we find no proper basis for disturbing the Carrier's action.

AWARD