Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
6797
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6622
2-HB&T-CM- ' 74
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Dana E. Eischen when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 2, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company violated
the Agreement of September 1,
1949,
as amended, particularly
Rule
29,
when they unjustly suspended Carman J. E. McCain
from service for a period of sixty (60) days beginning
May 17, 1972.
2.
That accordingly, the Houston Belt & Terminal Railway
Company be ordered to compensate Carman J. E. McCain in
the amount of eight hours
(8')
per day, five (5) days per
week beginning May
17, 1972,
covering the period of the
60-day' suspension, and that during this time he be allowed
all benefits accruing to any other employe in active
service.
Findings:
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 involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
thereon.
Claimant J. E. McCain, a car inspector in Carrier's employ at
South Yards, received the following letter under date of March
14,
1972:
Form 1 Award No.
6797
Page
2
-Docket No.
6622
2-HB&T-CM-'
74
,fir
"Report to the Superintendent's Office, Room 203,
Union Staticn, Houston Belt & Terminal Railway
Company, Houston, Texas 1:30 P.M. Tuesday, March
21, 1972
for formal investigation to develop
facts and place responsibility if any in connection with the charges that you failed to report
promptly an alleged injury claimed by you and for
your failure to promptly make out a personal
injury report as prescribed on Form 60-HB as
reported to Doctor Bill Robins, Chief Surgeon,
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company on March
10, 1972.
Bring any witnesses desired by you and representation as provided in your working agreement.
(Signed) B. C. Adams
Superintendent"
Following several postponements the investigative hearing was held
April
5, 1972.
Subsequently, Claimant was assessed 60 days suspension
effective May
17, 1972
on the grounds that he had failed promptly
to report an alleged injury and make out the personal injury report.
Appeals of this discipline on the property were declined by Carrier
and the claim comes to our Board for resolution.
Claimant testified throughout the proceedings on the property
that he injured his knee working on a caboose in Carrier's
South Yard while working the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift commencing
Tuesday, February 1,
1972.
Careful review of the hearing transcript
indicates admissions by Claimant that he did not make out a Personal
Injury Form HB-60 at the time of the alleged injury or any time
thereafater. Similarly by his own admission he sought medical
attention no sooner than 3 days after the alleged injury occurred.
The Claimant was charged with violating Rule F of the Uniform
Code of Safety and General Rules reading as follows:
"Rule F - Employes must report promptly to their
immediate supervisor all injuries, no matter how
trivial. In every case of personal injury in any
branch of the service, a full and complete report
must be made at once on prescribed form. They must
obtain immediate first aid and medical attention for
all injuries, when necessary." (Emphasis added)
Form 1
Page 3
Award No. 6797
Docket No. 6622
2-HB&T-CM-' 74
From our review of the record, there is no doubt that Claimant
failed to make out the required report. Carrier emphasizes the
importance of employes promptly and accurately reporting injuries
for the protection of all parties involved. The validity of
this position should be self-evident. The record adequately supports
the conclusion that Claimant violated this rule.
N6twithstanding the foregoing conclusions, we are of the
considered judgement that 60-day suspension is too harsh in the
circumstances of this case. Claimant is an employe with 17 years
service and the record shows no prior violations of safety rules.
Accordingly, the discipline should be reduced to 30 days suspension
effective May 17, 1972. Thus Carrier shall pay Claimant for the days
he would have worked but for the second 30 days of the 60-day
suspension.
A W A R D
Claim sustained. to the extent indicated in the findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
a
By ~ semarie Brasch - Admin'Istrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of December, 1974.