PARTIES TO DISPUTE: ~ -.

STATEMENT OF CIAI<I: "Whether the carrier, Consolidated Rail Corporation,
 discharged the petitioner, Mr. John E. Griffin of Hudson,
 New York, from his employment as an iron worker improperly and unfairly, and
 in violation of Article RI, Section 2, of the Mediation Agreement dated October
 30, 1978, by and between the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and
 certain carriers, including Conrail; the date of the said discharge from
 employment was December 7, 1978, Mr. Griffin having been headquartered at
 Poughkeepsie# New York."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The record shows that Claimant entered the service of the
 Carrier on June 9, 1976, as an Ironworker in Carrier's
 Bridge and Building Department.

 On November 16, 1978, Claimant was sent, via certified mail, a notice informing him to attend a hearing on November 21, 1978, in connection with the. charge:

The hearing was conducted as scheduled. Claimant was present throughout the hearing and was represented. It was developed is the hearing and Claimant admitted to answering "No" to the question: "Have you ever bees convicted?" In the hearing a copy of Claimant's conviction record was introduced by Carrier's Sergeant of Police, which showed five convictions between September 24, 1957, and December 6, 1974, two for larceny. The Claimant took no exception to the conviction record and agreed that he did falsify his application for employment.

 In the hearing, Claimant's attention was called to that part of the application form which reads:

Many awards of this Board have held that employes who falsify applications for employment are su between the date of the application and the date of discovery. See Awards 11328, 14274, 18103 and 20225.


The Carrier contends that in the handling of the dispute an the property no contention was made in the appeal procedure concerning Article RI, Section 2, of the Mediation Agreement of October 30, 1978, and, therefore, should not properly be considered by the Board. It is true that the issue was not raised in the appeal on the property; however, is the investigation Claimant's representative did make reference to such agreement. However, the Agreement referred to contains the language:

        "..: unless the information involved was of such a nature that the employee would not have bees hired if the Carrier had had timely knowledge of it."


The Carrier states that Claimant would not have been hired had it bees informed of his conviction record.

        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 Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Lobar Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jursidiction over the dispute involved herein; sad

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board


By ~ ~~ c ~ivco'v.

        Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


                                                ,~ul~ i '~-71

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of March 1982.~
                                                      i.


                                              ~ ~\`'e Oiiice-~ .