PUBLIC LAW
In the Matter of:

 BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES,

 Organization,

 and

 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,

 Carrier.

 Hearing Date: Hearing Location: Date of Award:

 BOARD NO. 3241

 National Mediation Board
 Administrator

 Case No. 32
 Award No. 32

 January 26, 1989
 Sacramento, California
 December 13, 1989

 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Employes' Member: C. F. Foose
 Carrier Member: L. E. Smith
 Neutral Member: John B. LaRocco

 ORGANIZATION'S STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM

1. That the Carrier violated the current Agreement when it dismissed Welder E. B. Helmer. Said action being excessive, unduly harsh and in abuse of discretion.


2. That the Carrier reinstate Claimant to his former position with seniority and all other rights restored unimpaired with compensation' for all wage loss suffered, and his record cleared of all charges.


Carrier File No. 870928
 Public Law Board No. 3241 Page 1
 " Case No. 32, Award No. 32
 OPINION OF THE BOARD

 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.

From March 13 through March 31, 1987, Claimant, a Bridge Welder, failed to report to his assignment. Claimant did not call the Carrier or otherwise mark off absent. Carrier officials and a Special Agent unsuccessfully attempted to contact Claimant.

Although the return receipts indicate that a certified letter notifying Claimant of an April 14, 1987 investigation was delivered to Claimant's residence, Claimant did not appear at the investigation. Indeed, Claimant continued to be absent from work without permission through April 14, 1987.

Claimant's continuous and unexplained absence demonstrates that he has abandoned his employment. In addition, Claimant's failure to appear at the investigation manifests his desire to sever his employment relationship with the Carrier. Therefore, the Carrier proffered substantial evidence that Claimant was absent without proper authority.

Public Law Board No. 3241 Page 2
 Case No. 32, Award No. 32



DATE ~e





John B. LaRocco

Neutral Member