Form 1 PTATIONAL RAILROAD ADJCSTI/`,'_";T BOARD Award No. 8261
SECOND DIVISION Docket ITO. 8157
2-C P-FO-' 80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and
in addition Referee Kay McP~Parray when ai-,,ar d was rendered.

( System Federation ITO. 7, Railiray Employes'

( Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1..0.

Parties to Disrnzte: ( (Firemen & Oilers)

( Ca.-aas Prairie Railroaa Car,Pany

Dis te: Chin of hr~?-plcr~es:

1. Under the current controlling Agreement, i,ax. Steve R: P.~:arsall, Laborer, Lewiston, 1_daho, was unjustly dealt with ,Then dismissed fray service of the Ca.las nairie Railroad Company, effective February 16, 1978.

2. That, accordin:-l;y, the C^znas Prairie Railroad Core;)any be ordered to reinstata 1..'r. Steve R, Pearsall . to ::~.'Lr-i'liC'' with seniority

r~ '-

unimpaired, Co,'vp~nsate for all time lost includintfrin-';-a beneilt5,

and remove 'the entry of CE:n s'U re from h- is personal f;..le.

Findings'

The Second Divis-i on of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and a1L the evidence, finds that:

The carer ier or carriers and the enpl oye or emnloyes involved in this dis 7zte are respectively carrier and employe within the ::leaning of the jai 1 ;.Tay Labor 1.c t 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.

The claimant, S. R. Pearsall, `gas employed as a laborer at the Carrier's facility in East Lewiston, Idaho.

On January 19, 1978, he -vws advised by Lqail to attend an investiTgation or Tuesday, January 24. The notice read in pertinent part:

II .p t

.., for the 71rpose of ascertaining the facts and determainin

your responsibility -in ccrz:ce t io=i vT=. th your filing late

accident report January 14, 1973, c1a,4.:-ininjury occurred

January (, l9('8:3.ZZ_c~ii1`Un duty _'. a~jl?1 y at !-;as't L c.jT! stun

wh:1..1.E: bOwrd:!.Y?-l loC(::":_O'G7_?ie P,-,T 1<n,6 at 0:x.'0 F."Jf January 7,

1978, also alled falsificatf_on oz :,-,rplo-,ment application."

The inves t:1 ~wtion -vras postponed at the request of the clW=.ant ancheld oi.i Febki?^,Y"y 7 , 1978 . The he::.?'1 n~' r e s'a!te.'Ca. i 12 i;::lE-. '')__.'l ty il~ k'::'iY! CO:'.?l _1.1ned Of.
Form 1 Award ITo. 8261
Page 2 Docket i~To. 8157
2-C P-FO-' 80

With respect to the first charge, the Carrier relies upon Rule 2 of the Burlington Northern Safety Book.

Rule 2: "An en. nloyee having any knowledge or info.rlnation concerning an accident or injury before his tour. of duty ends (or as soon thereafter as possible must conblete Report of Personal Injux-j, in triplicate, supplying the information required. All. copies are to be sent to the Superintendent."

The exposure of the Carrier to liability suits in cases of personal injury is well understood and the nnnloyer has a right to expect that all employees will adhere to the rule.

In the case at bar, the report of the incident which prompted the charges
was received seven days after occu-"rence, The organization seeks to justify -the
time lapse by poi ntin; out that f o r:ns -,~Tere not av .ilable at the office at the tiMe
of the incident. The record does con-ta. 4n reference to a auestion re~^;w_-din g the
foims, but no one attempted to find t em. During the period of tine betT.Teen the
incident and report, the cla:nant Z;as mobile and conducted normal activities
other than the i,Tork assi_gy:nent.

In connection 7aith the second a7Tegation, the Carrier introduced a copy of
the clainant's a,Pnlica.tion for er:7lo7;rnent ,,nerein he signed a statement that he
understood that he was s'_:r)ject to d.s-_issal at any time if the in:xormation con
tained in the ap pl i canon was incorrect. In that application there were two
questions:

1. Have you ever had a serious illness, or any injury, or oneration?

2. Were you ever injured in the course of previous eripl ozn_.ent?

Both of these questions were anS;;Tied in the negative: The clai;:=ant test=ified

that at the tune of e:a~lo;,-~rent he T:acs concerned about a back i njuxy received in
the Air force, so he e.N1;ed the doctor -.;.-no gave hi::: the pre-e=.)1 o-rN:ent phycicwl
about the problem. The doctor responded that since the Air force h-d. told hizn
there WL sn~ t arythi ng iTro2~'' he :.',:'oiL~J'_='ls t ,,Torry about 7.t. That sta tea_ent does
not alleviate the cla7:'ant f,S rcS :~:i"1S::bi li t".r 'Go` a nS'wer the questions ° tr?? tC='"L11
manner. Since the injury in dispute ?ms located in the bacI--, the rsedical history
becomes important. However, zrFll-i~:tte:,i;ion~;d the claimant r:sight have been in
connection zrith the ch-.rges, th°.~ -card i s constrained by the acts. From the
foregoing and the entire record, it is clear that the preronderance of evidence
upholds the Carrier's posit=ion. hey z;ere within their contractual rights in
assessing the penalty.
A W A R D

Claim denied.

Form l Avrard Too. 8261
Page 3 Docket T To 0 8157
2-C P-FO- f 80
NATIMi4T, RAILROAD ADJUSUEITI BOARD
By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

B' ,_ _ -f`_n~ .'°_ _ ) . l' .'r ~!-' .I" ~, _
Roseaarie Brach - fic.n istrat:ive Assistant y

Dated'-at Chicago, Illinois, this 5tli day of T:larch, 1980.