BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE )
OF WAY EMPLOYES )
AWARD NO. 133
and ) CASE NO. 133
NEW JERSEY TRANSIT RAIL )
OPERATIONS, INC.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:



FINDINGS:

Special Board of Adjustment No. 956, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein; and that the parties to the dispute were given due notice of the hearing and-did-participate therein.

Claimant entered the Carrier's service in June of 1988. At some unspecified time, he was placed on a medical leave of absence. Beginning on January 12, 2005, and then again on February 28, 2005 and August 17, 2005, Claimant was notified to report to Carrier's Medical Services Department for an assessment of his physical condition. Each. of these letters states in pertinent part:



All three letters were sent by certified mail to the Claimant's last known address of record and to a post office box address listed in his name. The receipt and record of delivery indicates that each letter was received and signed for at the Claimant's address.

Claimant did not report to the Medical Services Department nor did he contact the Carrier to advise them of his current status.
S.B.A. No. 956 Award No. 133
Page 2 Case No. 133

By certified letter dated September 15, 2005, Claimant was notified to report for hearing in connection with the following charges:





The hearing was postponed at the Organization's request and took place on October 20, 2005. Claimant did not appear at the hearing and efforts to locate him before proceeding with the hearing on that date were unsuccessful. He was subsequently dismissed from service.

Based on our review of the record, we find that substantial evidence exists to support the Carrier's determination that Claimant was guilty of the charges lodged against him and that the discipline imposed was fully warranted. Numerous attempts to contact the Claimant at his last known address of record have proved fruitless. If Claimant desired to maintain his employment status with the Carrier, it was incumbent on him to comply with Carrier's instructions and to notify the Carrier of his whereabouts. He did not do so. It is evident that the Claimant has abandoned his employment relationship with the Carrier. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
S.B.A. No. 956 Award No. 133
Page 3 Case No. 133








Carrier Member Organization Member/

Dated this day of , 2006.