TIE ' TO TO Due,

(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad aTAT'EMLNT OF Cl. IM.

      Carrier's decision to dismiss Eastern Region Maintenance of Way employee M. Carswell, ellective November 8, 1996 was unjust


      Accordingly, Carrier should now be required to reinstate the claimant to service with his seniority rights unimpaired and compensate hum for all wages lost from November 8. 1996.- (01-15 .AA-97/10-13 A1-9611)


FINDINGS

Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board is duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.


      On September 10, 1996, the following letter was sent to Claimant.


      "This is to advise you that, effective September 10, 1996, your seniority and employment with The Santa Fe Railway Company is hereby terminated pursuant to the provisions of Letter of Understanding dated July 13, 1976 for being absent without proper authority for more than five (5) consecutive work days beginning August 29, 1996 forward


      If you dispute the action taken hereinabove, you may, if you desire, request to be given an investigation under the provisions of Rule 13 of the current agreement Such request for utvcstigation must be made to this office at the address noted below within twenty (20) days from the date of this notice


      Ifno request for investigation is received in my office within the twenty day period, - the matter of your employment termination will be considered closed."

Page 2

 p/a ,UD -5gsa

Award No.36

Case No. 35


Claimant requested an Investigation which was scheduled for and held on October 16, 1996, following which Carrier reaffirmed its termination of Claimant's seniority and employment rights.
 Claimant was knowledgeable of the date ofthe Investigation, but opted not to attend During the Investigation, Carrier presented unrebutted evidence that Claimant was absent in excess of five consecutive work days without authorization.
 The purpose of the Investigation is to give the charged employee an opportunity to establish a bonafide reason for his unauthorized absences. When Claimant opted not to appear, there was nothing proffered that would in any way lead to a mitigation of damages. Claimant was absent without authority in excess of five consecutive work days. When this occurs, pursuant to Memorandum No id, the employee's seniority and employment rights are terminated. AWARD
Claim denied.

                          0$QF.B

This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.

 Robert L. Hicks, Chairman Neutral Membei

    Foos ;.Labior Member


Dated ' ~,he 9, l99' 7


Greg GrFF-,~Cnrrier Member