NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-26425
Rodney E. Dennis, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Railroad Company
(former St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The dismissal of Track Foreman M. R. Casey for alleged
violation of Safety Rules 585 and 589 of the Safety and General Rules of the
Burlington Northern Railroad and Rule 885 of the Rules of the Maintenance of
Way Department 'wherein you failed to report a personal injury to your
immediate supervisor that you allegedly incurred on January 25, 1983, till a
period almost ten months later' was without just and sufficient cause (System
File B-1435/MWC 84-4-25A).
(2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other
rights unimpaired, his record shall be cleared of the charges leveled against
him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was at the time of the incident that gave rise
to this case working as a Track Foreman on Gang 133 at
William Springs, Missouri. Claimant did not report for work on January 26,
1983. He was not in contact with the Railroad until February 10, 1983, when
he submitted a request for a 60-day leave (personal illness). Additional
requests were submitted and approved. On November 7, 1983, Claimant returned
to work. On November 10, 1983, Carrier received a letter from Claimant's
personal Attorney stating that Claimant had retained him to process a Claim
for damages against Carrier, account Claimant was injured in an accident on
the track on January 25, 1983. Claimant did not report the alleged injury
when it occurred nor, at that date, had he submitted any personal injury forms
or personal injury reports. The first time Carrier was aware of the accident
was on November 10, 1983, when it received the Attorney's letter.
After an Investigation of the matter by Carrier officials, Claimant
was dismissed from service for failure to report the accident. He was charged
with a violation of Rule 585, Rule 589, and Rule 885.
"Rule 585. All accidents/incidents must be
reported to immediate supervisor as soon as
possible by first available means of communication. F-27 to follow to immediate supervisor,
division superintendent and/or terminal or shop
superintendent.
Award Number 26483 Page 2
Docket Number MW-26425
Rule 589. An employe having any knowledge or
information concerning an accident or injury to
himself or others must complete Form 12504,
Report of Personal Injury, in triplicate, before
his tour of duty ends (or as soon thereafter as
possible), supplying the information required.
All copies are to be sent to the superintendent.
:t * :t
Rule 885. All accidents resulting in injuries
to employes when on duty, and off-duty accidents
where they occur on railroad premises, and all
accidents to persons other than employes occurring on railroad property, regardless of the
extent of injuries, and all accidents resulting
in property damage must be promptly reported to
the Superintendent.
A Hearing into the matter was held. Claimant was found guilty as
charged and dismissed from Carrier's service on January 10, 1984. The Transcript of that Hearing has
review of that record reveals that Claimant was afforded all procedural and
substantive rights guaranteed by Agreement and that it supports a finding of
guilt.
All Divisions of this Board have commented many times on the serious
nature of failing to report on-duty accidents immediately. Carrier has a
right to know when an accident takes place. Failure to notify Carrier can, in
the final analysis, be costly to both Carrier and the injured employe. Maintenance of Way employes a
accident for almost ten months. He then did so by having his Lawyer write
Carrier and tell it that a damage Claim would be filed. Carrier concluded
that Claimant's failure to report the accident was of such a serious nature
that it dismissed Claimant. We find no basis in the record to dispute this
action.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
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 26483 Page 3
Docket Number MW-26425
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:
Nancy J. v4er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of September 1987.