Claimant. was employed by the Carrier as a Trackman on April 15, 1985. On June 18, 1985, he was sent a Certified letter by the Superintendent, notifying him that, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, his seniority and employment were terminated due to his being absent from duty without authority since June 10, 1985. The letter apprised the Claimant that he had the right to challenge this action, by requesting a formal investigation within twenty days of the date of the letter.
Claimant did not request an investigation, or contact the Carrier in any way, until the organization filed its appeal on August 15, 1985 - nearly sixty days after the date of the letter. The main thrust of the appeal is that Claimant sent the General Chairman of the organization a letter, asserting that he was absent due to "serious health problems at his home which could not be ignored."
The Carrier argues that its action was entirely proper under the terms of the Agreement between the parties; that Claimant violated carrier Rules by absenting himself from duty without authority, and that it followed the clear provisions of the Agreement
in notifying the Claimant of its actions. It maintains, further, that Claimant had little service, and its decision was appropriate.
The record is clear that the Carrier followed the terms of the Agreement in this case. It sent the requisite letter to Claimant advising him of the action, provided a copy to the Organization, and explained the Claimant's right to request an investigation. Claimant, on the other hand, did not seek permission to be off duty as required by the Rules, and did not even notify the Carrier of his whereabouts. Further, he did not request an investigation to stay the Carriers action. In fact, there is nothing in the record to indicate that Claimant ever offered the carrier an explanation; his sole effort was contained in a letter to the organization.
The Claimant's reference to "serious-health problems" is not sufficient to warrant his return to service. He offered no details of the "problems" or evidence to support the contention. He made no attempt to explain his failure to respond to the Certified letter, or to seek permission to be absent.