the Railway Labor Act. as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 99--46 and has iurisdiction of the oar2:ieF and the ,ubiect matter.
Claimant had been employed by Carrier since 19?6. He had been dismissed by Carrier and as a result of Award Nv. t?b of t.ni.G. Board ho "A= reinstated to his former position by letter dated
`s9BU_ At.l.emnta to deliver -that letter bv certified t-to=_.r.c.`essaful. The letter was ultimately returned to the
onntember 'r0r. 1.985 Claimant, was not.ilied that he had been absent from work: since August 28 without oroper authority and was cherafore belnQc terminated. That letter also stated that he cool.' reouest an investigation under Rule 35 of the current Agreement within '0t davs. The letter dated September ."girl was returned sinned by ,rr r.nd ividual who is unknown to- Claimant. At the reauest o* the Oroanizat.ion, an investigation was scheduled for October 11. 1985 and notice to be present at the hearino was mailed to Claimant by certified mail dated September .-0. 1985 and again the letter was returned - unclaimed. The hearino w-3s conducted as scheduled urn October 1.1 without- Claimant being oresent. As a result of that henrinn_ Carrier sustained its prior decision- to terminate Claimant for hips lack of attendance as renuired (Rule A 10j.
Claimant has not beenheard from by Carrier since 1985. There i= no question but that hoe failed W tender his proper current address to Carrier- and all efforts to contact him have been Unsucce=ssful_ There .is no basis for sustaining the claim in this matte=_rand it must be denied. p La-7439