(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE;

STATEMENT OF CLAIM; "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The dismissal of Trackman Johnny M. Moore was capricious, arbitrary, unwarranted and on the basis of unproven charges (System File F-8-78/.

 (2) Trackman Johnny M. Moore shall now be allowed the benefits prescribed in Agreement Rule 26 (c) and he shall be reimbursed for all expenses incurred in connection with attending the investigation."

 OPINION OF BOARD; Claimant Johnny M. Moore, a trackman on Carrier's Extra
 Gang No. 2, was dismissed from service for failing to report an accident. On March 28, 1978, claimant informed Assistant Roadmaster F. R. Jones that he ha Wednesday, March 15, 1978.

 In the process of filling out an accident report, it was discovered that claimant was not sure of just when or where he was injured. In an effort to ascertain the facts surrounding claimant's injury, Carrier convened an investigative hearing into the matter on May 15, 1978. Subsequent to that hearing, claim May 26, 1978, for violation of Rules 2, 4, and 662 of the BN Safety Rules.








A review of the stenographic record of the May 15, 1978, hearing reveals that claimant was not denied any substantive procedural rights and that he was afforded a full and fair hearing. It also reveals that claimant had some major difficulty identifying just what day he sustained the back injury he supposedly received. While the failure to be able to settle on a specific date might call into question his honesty or his motives, this inability to specify a time is incidental to the dispute.

 If claimant was injured on March 15, as he first claimed, or on March 21, 22, or 24, as he eventually stated, he has not met the requirements of Rules 2, 4, or 662. must complete Form 12504 before his tour of duty ends or as soon thereafter as possible. Claimant di and a report was not submitted until April 3rd. This clearly is not what Rule 2 contemplates.

 Just as Rule 2 was not complied with by claimant, neither was Rule 4 nor Rule 662. Given the fact that claimant is in violation or has not met the requirements of these cited rules, carrier has the right to impose discipline. Carrier chose to discharge claimant from service. This Board is mindful,of the importance of prompt and complete reporting of accidents on railroad property and of the liability claims that railroads have lodged against them when employes are injured on the job.

 With this in mind, the Board can fully understand Carrier's desire to impose a severe penalty on employes who do not comply with safety rules. It is the opinion of this Board that Carrier has not been arbitrary or capricious in this instance. Claimant violated three rules. Since claimant is guilty as charged and Carrier did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner, this Board sees no reason to modify Carrier's action in any way.

        FINDINGS; The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon #a whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
                      Award Number 22936 Page 3

                      Docket Number IIW-22946


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of August 1980.