. , , f t I




orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6391
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6272
 2-N&W-MA- 1 7
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.

Parties to Dispute: ( (Machinists)

 i

Dispute: Claim of Employes:.,











The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or.carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

      This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute I

involved herein. _

      Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon. !_


i Claimant entered the employ of the Carrier on November 11., 1968. In Mid 1970 in the course of an investigation of an alleged back injury sustained by the Claimant in the course of his employment with the Carrier, the Carrier discovered that the Claimant had. been involved in an automobile accident in December of 1962 and allegedly suffered a back injury at that time. Subsequently, after investigation and hearing the Claimant was discharged on October 26, 1970 for allegedly
 falsifying his employment application, in that he did not report the previous i
 injury to his back.

      Claimant raises several procedural points in this matter. First, it is

.aimed that the exact nature of the charge against Claimant was not disclosed
 the Carrier until the investigation was actually held, in violation of Rule
 .JJ· That rule states in part: -

                                                                l

Form 1 Award No. 6391
 Page 2 'Docket No. 6272
 2-N&W-MA-'72
 i
 "No employee shall.be disciplined without a fair hearing by designated
 officer of the Railroad. Suspension in proper cases pending a hearing,
 which shall be prompt, shall not be deemed a violation of this rule. At .uI
 a reasonable time prior to the hearing, such employee and his duly
 authorized representative will be apprised of the precise charge and
 given reasonable opportunity to secure the presence of necessary
        witnesses ...."


The Claimant received a letter dated September 22, 1970 from Foreman Newell which stated:

        "You are hereby notified to report to the office of the Assistant to the Master Mechanic, Decatur Locomotive Shop, Decatur, Illinois, at 9·30 A.M. Friday, September 25, 1970, for a formal investigation to determine your responsibility, if any, in connection with your falsifying information on your application for employment.


        If you desire to have your duly authorized representatives and/or witnesses present at this formal investigation, please arrange for their presence."


      It should be noted, contrary to the~Carrier's argument, that Claimant did

raise the issue of the lack of knowledge of the precise charge at the investigation
 in that he would not plead guilty since he said he was not aware of the specific
 charge. ..

 Rule 33 was designed to protect the employees and insure due process. In this case Claimant was represented at the investigation by the General Chairman, the Local Chaifan and two Canmitteemen, all of whom either knew or should have known. what Clalmant's rights were. At the hearing there was no formal objection made that Claimant had not been properly informed of the precise nature of the charges; further there was no motion for a continuance for time for adequate preparation. From the record it appears that Claimant and his representatives knew what it was Claimant was being charged with and were prepared and indeed did proceed. This Board finds that Claimant, by his conduct in proceeding with the hearing, without our making any determination of the sufficiency of the charge contained in the September 22nd letter above, waived any right to complain about the charge. This position has been well expressed in Second Division Awards 1251 and 1788 among others.

 As a further matter of procedure, Claimant alleges in his submission that he was not charged with a violation of the controlling agreement. We find that it is not necessary to charge a violation of the agreement in order to proceed with an investigation or 'in order to discipline an employee. A long history of awards supports this position. '

 In its submission, Claimant states that the Carrier violated Rule 39 in the discharge. The pertinent sentence of Rule 39, which deals with employment applications is "The application shall be approved or disapproved within (30) thirty days after applicant begins work". We do not find support for the position
 that Rule 39 precludes any action by the Carrier in the event that information j
 concerning falsification of the application comes into its possession more than ~, i
 thirty days after an employee starts to work.
                                                                t


Form 1 Award No. 6391
 Page 3 Docket No. 6272
 2-N&W-MA-'72

 The employment application contained the question, number 14; "Have you ever b-_n injured? If so, when and at what place?'.r To this question Claimant responded 'INo", testifying however, that his wife filled out the application for him and he merely signed it and brought it into the office. The investigation presented no substantial evidence establishing the fact of a back injury; Claimant neither affirmed nor denied that he had suffered such injury. However Claimant, at the investigation, did admit that an automobile accident had taken place, that he had received a cash settlement, and that the settlement was for time lost. The amount of the settlement was for time lost considerably in excess of six months; it, is reasonable to presume that such a wage loss was for significant injury (even if unspecified) sustained in the accident. For the reasons stated above we find that Claimant did falsify his employment application.

      The employment application is a tool which the Carrier may appropriately use I

in his employment decision for either rejection, or further investigation prior to
 making a decision. In this case an accurate answer to Question 14 would at minimum
 have given the Carrier the option of further investigation. This Board has
 consistently held that employees who falsify applications for employment are subject
 to discharge regardless of the time lapse between the date of application and the
 date of discovery. (Second. Division Award 5994 and Third Division Awards 11328, 14274,,
 18103 and others)
 A W A R D
      Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Second Division


Attest: 4L,a. G
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of October, 1972.