Upon the whole record and ail the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as :mended. Further, the Board is duly constituted by Agreement hss Jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.
This is a companion case to Case 184. Claimant did not report for work on October 13, nor October 14, nor October 15, 1888, nor did he have authority to be off. Under the circumstances, the Carrier set an Investigation for October 25, 1999. A carbon copy of the notice was furnished the Local Representative who signed for his copy.
In the pct-Investlgation claim handling, iris Organization contends Claimant was net assigned to the vacancy at Macomb, thus he could not have been absent in as much ors he had never been assigned.
"this perhaps would have had a bearing on Claimant's guilt or innocence had It been raked during the Investigation, but In the post-lnvestfpatton exchange it is too late. Surety, If Claimant was never assigned, he could have appeared at tile Investigation K he had any interest at all In working for the Carrier.
The Organization raised the Issue of Carrier's failure to notify the "appropriate Local Organization Representative." This issue has been fully discussed in Case No. i64 of this Board and what has bean said there is Incorporated to its entirety In this Award.
The Carrier did furnish substantial evidence o! Claimant's culpability for the charges assessed. The discipline stands.
This Board, after consideration at the dispute Identified above hereby orders that en award favorable to the Ciaimant(s) not be made.