Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29424
 THIRD DIVISION Docket `7o. Mw-29824
 92-3-91-3-185
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Thomas J. DiLauro when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: ",-laim ): the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) Lhe dismissal 31 Laborer Driver L. X. Cantu for alleged violation of Rules 806 and 607 was harsh, unreasonable, excessive and in violation of the Agreement (System File '!W-90-79/493-33-A SPE).

 (2) The Claimant shall be restored to his former position as laborer driver, with sen:,Dritv and all other rights unimpaired, he shall have his record cleared of the charges leveled against him and he shall be paid for all wage loss suffered beginning May 25, 1990 and continuing until he is restored to service."

 FINDINGS:
The Third DiviSL.Jn of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, rinds 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 3oard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 Prior to his dismissal, Claimant served 11 years for the Carrier, and worked as a laborer-driver. On March 22, 1990, the Claimant was assigned to operate a PBA air (pneumatic) hammer to perform "high spiking."

 On Thursday, 'larch ?2, 1990, the Claimant sustained a personal injury to his left ring finger. T:^.e Roadmaster transported the Claimant to the Gateway :Medical .Iini_. The Claimant was diagnosed as having a small cyst, but he was released for duty with a 20 pound lifting restriction.
22, 1990.At approximately 7:45 A.M. on Friday, March 23, 1990, the Claimant
 Form 1 Award No. 29424
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29824
 92-3-91-3-185

 contacted the Foreman and requested permission to absent himself from work because his back pain prevented him from obtaining sufficient sleep. The Claimant also discussed this situation with the Roadmaster, and the Claimant indicated he would report for duty on March 26, 1990. The Roadmaster recorded the Claimant as absent from work on March 23, 1990, due to personal illness.

 On Sunday, "larch 25, 1990, the Claimant allegedly contacted the Foreman, and the Claimant reported he would be unable to work on Monday, March 26, 1990, because his back ailment prevented him from driving. The Foreman failed to record -laimant's absence and failed to report the cause of Claimant's absence to the Road
On Marc~2', 1990, _ne Senior Claims Representative contacted the Claimant, and the Claimant made him aware of his inability to report to work due his severe back pain. "he Claims Representative arranged for the Claimant to be examined :or ht> back lain. On March 29, 1990, a doctor diagnosed acute lumbar strain as tho etiology of the Claimant's back pain.

 By letter dated April 4, 1990, the Carrier requested information addressing the cause of the Claiman
By Not_ce dated Mav L, 1990, the Carrier instructed the Claimant to at.tend an Investigation in connection with alleged violation of General Rules
 806 and 607.;eneral Rule 3?6 provides:



General Rule 607 provides in pertinent part:



Form 1 Award No. 29424
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29824
 92-3-91-3-185
As a result of the Hearing, the Carrier determined the Claimant to be guilty of the charges. By letter dated May 25, 1990, the Claimant was dismissed from the service of the Carrier.

 The Organization contends the Claimant was denied his Agreement due process rights under .article 14. Article 14, Section 1, in relevant part, reads:

The Carr_er assertS ;rticle 14 of the Agreement permits reinstatement and pay for Lost tine t~nLv by reason of unsustained charges, and In this case, the charges were 3.ist;ained. _n addition, the Carrier notes that Claimant is still under 3 ph v>ician's care for the personal injury he sustained on `lay 22, 1990. Therefore, the Ctai-ant suffered no loss of earnings, because he remains physically enable to
The Organization a:leges the Carrier prejudged the Claimant's guilt. The Organization notes the Superintendent dismissed the Claimant from service by letter dated `tav =5, I99), prior to the certification of the Investigation transcript which occurred on or after June 1, 1990. Therefore, the Superintendent failed _) cons id- his decision to dismiss the Claimant.

 The Organization alleges the Carrier failed to have a witness present at the Investigation on whose knowledge the finding of guilt was based. The Organization objects t3
 the admission into the record of a letter from Lhe Claims Representative wherein )e attempted to refute some of the testimony Claimant presented during tie Investigation.

 The Organiz.ition maintains the Carrier's attempt to flood the record with superfluous documents following the Organization's filing of its Intent with the Board was untimely and in error. The Organization objects to the Carrier's attempt to introduce the Claimant's petition filed in the District Court of Maverick Countv, Texas, 365th Judicial District, wherein the Claimant claimed he suffered permanent injuries to his left hand, back and other parts of his body. Because the !.3cument is a public record, the Carrier asserts it had the right to admit It nefore this Board.

 The Organization irgues the Carrier failed to prove the charges for which the Claimant .ray disn_ssed from service. The Organization noted the Carrier leveled c:·arg~s in ~,Dnjunction with the Claimant's finger injury but dismissed him for hi; back injury. The Organization indicates the Claimant was neither disho-,,_:t nor -.egligent in failing to report his back injury. The Organization submitted the --laimant provided sufficient information to the Roadmaster and to the Foreman for them to infer his absence was due to his back pain.
 Form 1 Award No. 29424
 Page 4 Docket No. ;4w-29824
 92-3-91-3-185

 The Carrier argues it sustained its burden of proof. The Carrier notes both the Roadmaster and the Foreman testified the Claimant never advised them that he had sustained a Sack injury on March 22, 1990. The first knowledge of the Claimant's al Claimant testified he was familiar with Carrier procedures regarding the Employe's Report of Accident Form, but he admitted he failed to complete an Employe's Report if Accident =orm for his back injury.

 The Organtz.;tLon characterizes the dismissal of the Claimant as harsh and unreasonable. The ;rganization cites the Claimant's 11 years of unblemished service. The )rganization notes the Claimant lacked any intent to be dishonest to failing to .:>>plete the Employe Report of Accident Form.

 With respect to t'ie substantive charge, this Board finds that there is sufficient prooatlve eviueice in the record to establish that the Claimant is guilty of the charge agaiast him.

 The Claimant, the Foreman, and the Roadmaster, each testified the Claimant reported an injury to his finger on `larch 22, 1990, but he failed to report an injury to his back _at that time. Beyond this testimony, the reports of the three witnesses confl:zt as to when the Claimant informed the Carrier of his back injury. The Carr;er cites Board precedent that the Board does not weigh evidence, attempt to resolve conflicts therein, or pass upon the credibility of witnesses because these functions are reserved to the Hearing Officer. Third Division Awards 21921, 25134, 25102, 24991, 25306, 24470.

 The Board recognizes the Board precedent that credibility issues .are reserved to the nearing Officer. Therefore, the Board adopts the finding of the Hearing Officer in this case. The Board finds the Carrier fulfilled its burden to prove the Claimant =ailed to timely or correctly report his back injury alleged to ;lave occurred on March 22, L990.

 Although falsiflcat_on of an on-duty injury is a dismissal offense (Third Division Awards 25162, 25157, 24990, 26526, 26282), the penalty if dismissal is too harsh in this case. The Board notes the Claimant has an unblemished record of 11 ye the Claimant formed the specific intent to dishonestly fail to inform the Carrier of his back injury.

 The Claim is denied in part and sustained in part. The Claimant is to be reinstated, but he must pass a return to work physcial examination. The reinstatement is without backoay but with seniority unimpaired.

        Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.

Form 1 Award No. 29424
 Page 5 Docket No. MW-29824
 92-3-91-3-185
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Attest:
                  INancy ~. r -7cecutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, illinoi~, ~71s 21st day of October 1992.