The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
After Investigation, the Claimant received a 90-day suspension by letter dated July 7, 1999, in part, as a result of his failure to immediately notify his Supervisor of an injury. By letter dated September 3, 1999, the Carrier reduced the suspension to time served - i.e., an approximate two-month suspension.
The record shows that on April 21, 1999, while on duty, the Claimant burned the back of his hand. The Claimant did not report the injury until the following day.
Rule GR-E provides that "[i]n all cases when a personal or property accident occurs, however slight, the Chief Train Dispatcher must be notified immediately." Whether the Claimant thought the injury was not serious is irrelevant. Injuries must be reported "[i]n all cases . . . however slight." Failure to "immediately" report the injury in accord with the Rule hinders the Carrier's ability to investigate the cause of the injury, make arrangements to provide immediate care and prevent similar injuries in the future. The Claimant's waiting until the next day to report the injury did not meet his obligation to "immediately" report the injury. The Claimant failed to meet his reporting obligations. Substantial evidence therefore supports the Carrier's determination that the Claimant engaged in misconduct.
However, we find that under the circumstances the imposed approximate twomonth suspension was excessive and arbitrary. We believe that a 21-day suspension will get the message through to the Claimant that he must comply with the Carrier's Rules - particularly the Rule requiring that employees report injuries "immediately," and "however slight." The Claimant shall therefore be made whole less the consequences of a 21-day suspension.
The Organization's procedural arguments are not persuasive. The Carrier's further arguments that the Claimant did not properly and safely perform his duties and Form 1 Award No. 13671
that he was dishonest also do not change the result. Even assuming these added allegations are supportable, the suspension we have imposed in this case would not be increased by these additional findings. The purpose here is get the Claimant to understand that he must comply with the Carrier's Rules. Under the circumstances, a 21-day suspension will accomplish that end.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimants) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.