File No. 860005


Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 to and
 Dispute Union Pacific Railroad Company
 (Former Missouri Pacific Railroad Company)

 Statement
 of Claim: (1) Carrier violated the Agreement, especially Rule 12,
 when Trackman R. J. Mallet was dismissed from the
 service on August 15, 1986.

        (2) Claimant Mallet should now, therefore, be allowed compensation for time lost from August 15, 1986 until reinstated with all past privileges, vacation and seniority rights unimpaired.


Findings: The Board has jurisdiction by reason of the parties
 Agreement establishing this Board.
 Claimant Trackman, prior to and subsequent to July 10
 11, 1986, was a member of Track Gang 5537 working in the
 vicinity of Opelousas, Louisiana.
 The Claimant did not show up to protect his assignment
 on July 10-11, 1986. He did not have authority to be absent
 from work on those two dates nor did he offer any
 explanation as to why he was not at work.
 Claimant reported for duty on July 12, 1986. When his
 Foreman inquired as to why he was not at work on July 10 or
 11 the Claimant refused to offer any explanation.
 Charges were placed against Claimant and a notice of
 formal investigation was served on Claimant by his Track
 Foreman which he acknowledged receipt on July 14. The July
 17 investigation was postponed by the General Chairman and
 it was rescheduled for 10:00 AM on August 13, 1986. The
 Claimant failed to appear on August 13 at 10:00 AM. The
 hearing was delayed and a search made of the hearing site.
 Midway through the investigation another search was
 conducted but Claimant neither appeared nor called. Hence
 the investigation proceeded in absentia and concluded at
 11:45 AM on August 13.
 Claimant appeared at the Depot in Opelousas shortly
 after noon. He advised the Hearing Officer that he had
 misread the notice of postponement. However, the
                        -2- Award No. 341


        investigation was not reopened for further testimony at that time.


        The Superintendent concluded from the transcript that Claimant was in violation of Item 5 of the conditions of employment, General Rule B and Rules 600 and 604 of the Safety Radio and General Rules for all Employees. He was dismissed from service as discipline therefor.


        Claimant was accorded the due process to which entitled under Rule 12. He was notified by his Foreman. Exhibit A of the transcript reflects that the Claimant was notified as to the original investigation to be held for which he signed. The Foreman testified that he delivered the message for the postponement thereof which advised of the rescheduled date at 10:00 AM on Wednesday, August 13, 1987. Hence we find no error so egregious as to be cause for reversal of the discipline.


        There was sufficient evidence adduced to support Carrier's conclusion as to Claimant culpability.


        The discipline in light of Claimant's poor service record is deemed to be reasonable. This claim will be denied.


Award: C1 im denied.

    a o s, r. _Fny oyee Member J. Sh n on, Carrier Member


Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman

and Neutral Member


Issued July 13, 1989.