(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE: ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes




(1) Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on December 23, 1981, it imposed discipline of dismissal from Carrier's service upon Stores Counterman Mr. D. B. Lightfoot, Stores Department, Barr Yard, Chicago, Illinois, as a result of an investigaton held in absentia on December 17, 1981, which action was prejudiced and unjustified, and
(2) As a result of such impropriety, Carrier shall be required to reinstate Mr. D. B. Lightfoot to his former position with seniority rights unimpaired and compensate him for all lost wages commencing with the date of December 23, 1981.
OPINION OF BOARD. Claimant was employed as a counterman in Carriers Car
 Shop Storeroom, Barr Yard, Chicago, Illinois. On November
 10, 1981, he was assigned to loading draft gears onto a pallet in the storeroom.
 The Carrier contends that although claimant had strict instructions to the
 contrary, rather than using an available forklift, he began standing the draft
 gears upright on the pallet by lifting them himself. At about 1:50 P. M. claimant
 notified his supervisor that he had been injured. When the supervisor arrived
 on the scene, claimant was asked to fill out a Personal Injury form. He did
 not complete what is referred to as Item 7 of the form as to "nature and extent"
 of the injury being reported. The Carrier arranged for claimant to receive
 medical attention, but even after such medical attention he would not complete
 Item 7 of the Personal Injury form.
On November 12, 1981, claimant was notified by Carrier's Assistant Manager Terminal Services:






                      Locket Number CL-24770


The investigation was postponed on two occasions at the request of the Division Chairman of the Organization as result of which it was scheduled for December 17, 1981. No further request was made for postponement by the Organization representative or by the claimant. Neither claimant nor his representative appeared at the investigation as result of which it was held in absentia. One Carrier Officer, the Assistant Manager Terminal Control, testified as to his conversation with claimant's local chairman as to whether he would represent claimant at the investigation or request a postponement, and the local chairman's reply to both questions was "No.ff The same Carrier Officer stated that claimant had not requested a postponement of the investigation set for December 17, 1981. He testified that he had received a letter from claimant stating, among other things:
              ·No. 3. About my investigation, it will be up to the doctor if I will be able to make it, he will let you and Mr. Brunke know (spelled no), by mail or phone."


He went on to state that he had received no telephone message or written message by Mr. Lightfoot's doctor, C. Scott, or any other doctor. There is no evidence in the record that claimant was so disabled that he could not have requested a postponment of the investigation, either in writing or by telephone. It is well established by Awards of this Board that conducting an investigation ·in absentia" does not in itself constitute deprivation of an employe's right to a fair and impartial hearing. See Awards 18395, 18129.
On December 23, 1981, claimant was notified by the Carrier's Trainmaster:
        "This refers to investigation held in Absentia, at 8:00 A. M., Thursday, December 17, 1981, in the Conference Room, Barr Yard Annex Building, 733 West 136th Street, Riverdale, Illinois, for the purpose of determining the material facts in connection with your failure to handle Draft Gear Pat. #1914479, as reported on your Form CJ-68, in a manner that would prevent alleged personal injury to yourself at approximately 1:50 p.m., November 10, 1981, and failure to complete CJ-68 as instructed by Manager Terminal Services W. E. Whalin.


        It has been found you were at fault for failure to properly handle draft gears as previously instructed and at fault for not complying with instructions of Manager Terminal Services by not completing Form CJ-68.


        The discipline administered is Dismissal from Service of the Company. Your record will be marked accordingly.·


The Organization complains that one Carrier officer issued the letter of charge, another conducted the investigation, and a third officer rendered the decision. As neither the claimant nor his representative attended the investigation conducted on December 17, 1981, we think that the Organization is not on good grounds in complaining, after the decision was rendered, as to who preferred the charges, conducted the investigation or rendered the decision. Rather, we have been referred to no rule in the Agreement specifying who will prefer charges, conduct investigations, or render decision. See Awards 24275 and 23114 involving the same parties, as well as Awards 21559 and 21405.
            Award Number 24546 Page 3

                      Locket Number CL-24770


There was evidence in the investigation that the Section Stockman had instructed claimant as to the proper manner of handling draft gears and placing them on the pallet; that on previous occasions when he attempted to instruct claimant, the claimant would "explode°, get off the forklift and wander off to the caboose track. In its submission to the Board the Organization complains that there were no posted instructions as to the proper handling of draft gears. Employes are expected to comply with instructions, whether posted or verbal.
There was also direct testimony in the investigation that claimant refused, on more than one occasion, to complete the personal injury report when instructed to do so by his supervisors. See Award 8, of Public Law Board 543 wherein it was held:
        "The accident reporting rule is of the utmost importance to the Carrier in the conduct of its operations, and any employee who does not comply with it does so at his peril."


It was also brought out in the on-property handling that claimant had previously been dismissed from service and was reinstated on a leniency basis, and that following his reinstatement he was charged with disciplinary offenses on three occasions and was assessed a 30-day overhead suspension as a result.
Based upon the record before us, there is no proper basis for the Board to interfere with the discipline imposed by the Carrier.
        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 respectively 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: Z

10~
 Nancy J. er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of November, 1983