Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27971
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28257
 89-3-88-3-34
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Stanley E. Kravit when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The thirty (30) day suspension imposed upon Steel Erection Foreman R. L. Winn for alleged violation of General Rules 'A', 'B' and 'E' and Rules 600 and 4004 as contained in Form 7908, was without just and sufficient cause, exceedingly harsh and in violation of the Agreement (System File D-92/870174).

 (2) The Claimant's record shall be cleared of the charges leveled against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered as a result of his suspension from service including any and all benefits he would have received if he had not been suspended."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

On July 3, 1986, Claimant was a Steel Erection Foreman with 6 years of service. He apparently fell on the job on that day, but did not report any injury or fill out an accident report. During two conversations with his Supervisor on that day he failed to mention any fall or injury.

 Upon leaving work he experienced severe back pain and was treated, first, by a chiropractor, and then at a hospital from which he was released about midnight. Claimant testified that on July 4, 1986, he was in too much pain to call his Supervisor and that on July 5, he was unable to get a home telephone number for either of his immediate superiors.
 Form 1 Award No. 27971
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28257
 89-3-88-3-34

 On July 7, he did speak with his Supervisor by phone. According to Claimant, he told his Supervisor about falling on July 3, and subsequently experiencing pain. He asked for a week's vacation in order to recover from his injury without experiencing any lost time.

 The Supervisor contradicted this testimony. He stated that on July 7, he asked Claimant whether his injury was on-duty or off-duty and Claimant told him it was an off-duty injury.



The two men spoke again by phone on July 10, when Claimant called to request additional time off. According to his Supervisor, it was at this time that Claimant first mentioned that he was going to claim an on-duty accident. A report form was brought to him and subsequently submitted to the Carrier on July 16, 1986.

 When questioned about the conversation of July 7, Claimant responded as follows:





Claimant's testimony regarding the conversation of July 7, 1986, lacks credibility when compared to his testimony that he was in too much pain to report the accident on July 4, and that he tried but was unable to do so on July 5. If he had been intent on reporting an accident for 2 or 3 days he would have done so clearly on July 7, and his own recollection of having done so would be equally clear. The Hearing Officer was entitled to resolve the credibility issue in favor of the Supervisor's version of the July 7, 1986, conversation.

 Claimant testified that, as a Foreman, he knows the Rule regarding filling out of accident reports and enforces it. This was all the more reason to see to it that this was specifically done in his own case on July 7, even conceding his excuses for not having done it between July 3 and 7.
 Form 1 Award No. 27971
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-28257
 89-3-88-3-34




who was subsequently suspended for 30 days. It has consistently been held
 that this Board cannot set itself up as trier of fact when conflicting tes
 timony appears in the record. This Board does not pass on the credibility of
 witnesses.

Therefore, there is sufficient substantial evidence in the record from which to conclude that Claimant violated Rule 4004 as charged. In view of the necessity of filing timely and accurate accident reports, the Board cannot say that the 30 day suspension was so excessive as to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious.




                          By Order of Third Division


                  01


Attest.
      Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of June 1989.