NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MEW-23104
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The dismissal of Trackman C. E. Randolph was without just and
sufficient cause and wholly disproportionate to the offense with which charged
(System File B-1819).
(2) Trackman C. E. Randolph shall be afforded the remedy prescribed
in Article 11, Rule 91(6)."
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant had been employed by Carrier as a trackman for about
five months. He was dismissed from the service on August 14,
1978, for failure to report a personal injury which he allegedly sustained on
August 3, 1978, and for failure to return to work after being released by medical
authority. At the request of the Organization, a formal investigation was con
ducted on August 28, 1978, following which claimant's dismissal was affirmed.
The record shows that claimant allegedly sustained a personal injury
about 11:30 a. m., August 3, 1978, while assisting other employes in moving a rail.
He continued working that day but did not report the injury to his foreman. Carrier's
Rule 713 reads:
"If physically able, an employe injured on duty must report
the injury to his foreman or other supervisory officer
before leaving company premises."
The claimant reported the injury to the foreman on August 4,,1978. He
was taken to a hospital. The doctor at the hospital diagnosed claimant's injury
as a pulled muscle, and advised claimant to stay off work the remainder of the day,
Friday, August 4, not to lift anything heavy, and to report to Company Doctor Young
an Monday, August 7, 1978. Claimant was examined by Dr. Young on August 7, 1978,
and again on August 8, 1978, who rendered report dated August 11, 1978:
"I first examined this man on 8/7/78 for painful left
sacro-? ? ? ?· He was strapped up for relief. I next saw
him on 8/8/78at which time he stated he was better. At
that time he stated back was still painful. I could find
no pathology."
Award Number 23006 Page 2
Docket Number 1W-23104
There is substantial evidence in the investigation that claimant
declined to return to work, after the Company Doctor advised the Foreman and
the Roadmaster on August 9, that he was able to do so. The foreman contacted
the claimant and inquired if he would return to work if the foreman assigned
him light duty, but claimant refused. Claimant later refused to turn over to
the foreman the release given him by Dr. Young.
Based upon the entire record, and considering claimant's short service,
the Board does not find the Carrier's action to be arbitrary, capricious or in
bad faith.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the 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 respec
tively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as
approved June 21, 1934;
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: ~J
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of October
1980.