It is the position of the Organization that the Claimant was denied a fair and impartial Hearing because the Investigation was held in absentia. Additionally, it argued that the concept of fairness would indicate that the Carrier had improperly attempted to pyramid or "stack" like offenses within a small timeframe, which did not give the Claimant an opportunity to correct his behavior. Therefore, it concluded that the discipline should be set aside and the claim sustained as presented.

The Carrier argued that the Investigation was held in absentia after the Notice of Investigation was returned to it after three attempts at delivery to the Claimant's address. Based upon that, it was reasonable to go forward with the Hearing. On the merits it argued that the record substantiates that the Claimant was guilty as charged and the discipline was appropriate because it was based upon its Progressive Discipline Policy. Therefore, it asked that the discipline not be disturbed.

The Board thoroughly reviewed the transcript and record evidence, which constituted the first of five cases involving the Claimant. As previously stated in Third Division Award 40445 the Claimant offered no evidentiary proof that he was physically unable to attend the Hearing. Therefore, it must be concluded that he chose not to appear at the Investigation. We reaffirm the principle, set forth in Award 40445 that the Claimant was not obligated to attend the Investigation, but failing to do so deprives the reader of the record of rebuttal or alternative story.

It is clear that the Investigation was properly held in absentia. We will next address the Organization's procedural argument that the Carrier attempted to pyramid ("stack") multiple violations on top of one alleged failure by the Claimant to protect his assignment. That argument has no relevance in this instance because the instant case was the initial violation and the "stacking" argument only applies to any subsequent cases that were allegedly improperly pyramided on this dispute.

The Board, having determined that the Claimant `vas not denied his Agreement due process rights, turns its attention to the merits. Our review of the transcript indicates that Claimant's immediate supervisor, Capital Project Signal Engineer R. Heim, testified that employees under his jurisdiction are required to call in prior to start of their tour of duty in order to request permission to be off work. Heim's office and mobile phone numbers are published in Engineering Special Instruction No. 1. On December 29, 2005, the Claimant did not call to request permission to absent himself from work, as required by Metra Employee Conduct Rule "Q," Paragraph No. 1, and

Engineering Special Instruction No. 1, Paragraphs Nos. 4 and 6. The Organization's vigorous effort to defend the Claimant without his assistance could not overcome the unrefuted testimony of the Carrier's witness. Therefore, the Board has concluded that the Claimant's behavior was not appropriate. It is clear that the Carrier met its burden of proof that the Claimant was guilty as charged.

The only issue remaining is whether the discipline assessed was proper. Our review of the discipline imposed reveals that it was in accordance with the Carrier's Progressive Discipline Policy. Therefore, the Board finds and holds that the discipline was appropriate because it was not arbitrary, capricious or excessive.

AWARD