This Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended; that this Board has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the dispute herein; that this Board is duly constituted by an Agreement dated July 23, 1982; and that all parties were given due notice of the hearing held on this matter.

In spite of receiving proper written notice, Claimant, an Extra Gang Laborer, did not appear at an investigation held on April 23, 1987, to determine if Claimant had used alcoholic beverages while on Company property. The Organization protested the Hearing Officer's decision to hold the hearing in Claimant's absence. As a result of the investigation, the Carrier dismissed Claimant from service on June 13, 1986.

After the members of Extra Gang 881 had gone to work on April 9, 1987, the Roadmaster and Track Supervisor discovered numerous empty beer cans in a spike container, which was being used as a trash receptacle, at the foot of Claimant's bunk in the outfit car. When the Track Supervisor brought Claimant in from

site, Claimant admitted that he had been drinking beer in car. More specifically, Claimant related that he drank

through April 9. A Scarfire operator also testified that he had observed Claimant drinking beer in the bunk car.

The Hearing Officer has the discretion to hold an investigation in the absence of the charged employee so long as the employee was given proper notice of the hearing. In this case, the return receipts show that Claimant received notice of

the hearing and the hearing postponements. An employee who fails to appear at a hearing does so at his own peril. NRAB Third Division Award No. 25418 (Carter). Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Hearing Officer did not abuse his discretion by holding the hearing even though the principal was absent.

Since Claimant did not appear at the hearing, the testimony of the Carrier witnesses went unrefuted. Two Carrier supervisors observed empty beer cans near Claimant's bunk, which is strong evidence Claimant consumed beer in the outfit car. Also, they both declared that Claimant admitted drinking alcohol on Carrier property. More importantly, an independent witness, the Scarfire operator, observed Claimant drinking in the bunk car. Therefore, the Carrier presented substantial evidence that Claimant violated Rule G.

AWARD AND ORDER