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

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.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

At approximately 4:00 A.M. or half-way into his 12:00 A.M. to 8:00 A.M. shift on June 6, 2002, the Claimant, while walking under a ramp, inadvertently hit his hard hat on an unmarked pipe, snapping his head back. No mention was made of this alleged on duty. The employee went home after completing his shift and did not report the injury until more than two hours into his next tour of duty - some 22 hours later - on June 7, 2002.

By letter dated June 13, 2002, the Claimant was instructed to attend an investigative Hearing on June 26, 2002 for the purpose of determining whether culpability existed for his alleged failure to timely notify supervision of his injury. By letter of July 12, 2002, the Claimant was advised that the charges were sustained and was assessed a 20 day suspension without pay. This decision was properly appealed on the property and is now before the Board.

The Organization, in the Claimant's defense, asserts that the Investigation was not fair and impartial. It states that the charges were not specific enough to allow the Organization to prepare an adequate defense. Further, the Hearing Officer assumed multiple roles and thereby tainted the process. It cites violation of Rule 29 which reads as follows:

"No employee shall be disciplined without a fair hearing by the Carrier. Suspension in proper cases (the proper case is one where leaving the man in service pending an investigation would endanger the employee or his fellow employees), pending a hearing, which shall be

The Board does not agree with this argument. While, specificity is better than vagueness or generality the charging letter is specific enough to allow the Claimant and his representative(s) to formulate a defense. It should not have confused him and did not disadvantage him in any way. The Claimant never said that he did not understand the nature of the charges; nor did he request a postponement.

The Organization also complains of the many roles played by the Hearing Officer. He not only presided over the Hearing, but also served as judge, witness, and jury, it asserts. The panel finds that he was not a witness, as the Organization contends, but simply introduced Rule language through witness testimony. Often, a single individual, for operational or other considerations, performs more than one nonconflicting role within the scope of a Hearing, and this same individual can maintain fairness and impartiality. To have an authorized individual function as Hearing Officer, determine the merits of a case, and issue a penalty is not without substantial precedent. The Board sees no flaw in this regard in the instant claim.

The Organization further argues that the Rules the Claimant is said to have violated, namely Rules 1.1.3 and 1.2.5, as well as 1-h of the Safety Through Awareness and Responsibility Guide, are compromised by the language contained in Rule 38. These Rules read as follows:

"1.1.3 Report by the first means of communication any accidents;

personal injuries; defects in tracks, bridges, or signals; or

any unusual condition that may affect the safe and efficient

operation of the railroad. Where required, furnish a

written report promptly after reporting the incident.

Carrier be able to quickly respond to an injury, no matter how slight, or correct an unsafe condition as rapidly as possible.

The Organization lastly argues that the Claimant did not intentionally or maliciously violate the Rules. The Claimant was not said to have intentionally or maliciously violated Carrier Rules. He simply violated them. The analogy is made to an individual who violates a company's Time and Attendance Policy. The veracity of the reasons given for an absence are not necessarily questioned; it is the number of absence occasions which are in excess of company standards that are the subject for investigation and possible discipline.

It is appropriate to comment on the Organization's assertion regarding the introduction of the Claimant's prior record even though the Hearing Officer never mentioned it in consideration of the discipline levied, and the Carrier also did not mention it until the final denial on the property. Prior record, it is known, is utilized to assess an employees past worth and assess an appropriate level of discipline. The fact that the Claimant's record was introduced later in the process is not problematic.

AWARD