(2) Claim in behalf of Mr. Holiday for wage loss suffered beginning May 7, 1992, and continuing until Claimant is reinstated with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired.

Agreement establishing the Board therefor.

Claimant Trackman, as a result of a formal investigation, held on June 2, 1992, on the charge:

".., you allegedly were intoxicated while on duty and on Company property therefor, creating an unsafe condition for yourself and others."

was concluded culpable and dismissed from service as discipline therefor.

The Claimant was accorded the due process to which entitled under his discipline rule. That he chose not to attend the investigation, which caused it to be held in absentia, does not thereby vitiate the investigation.

The Claimant is bound by the results of the evidence adduced thereat. Our Award No. 519 points these facts out. The Claimant there, as here, was properly notified. He, too, chose not to attend but he was bound by the results adduced thereat.

There was sufficient evidence adduced to support the Carrier's conclusion of culpability. Witnesses Foreman Bazille and Timekeeper D. R. Juneau testified as to his odor, physical reactions and that he picked an altercation with Juneau. The Claimant was also instructed, several times, to do his exercises and be quiet.

The discipline is reasonable. Dismissal has been applied to Rule G violations. Here, the Claimant, who only had two and one-half months of service, was offered an opportunity on February 1, 1993, to enter and participate in the Rule G "Rehabilitation/Education Program" and he refused it. The Board can do no more for him than he chose to do for himself. This claim is denied.

A ur T. Van Wart, Chai Man

and Neutral Member