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 employe 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Effective September 17, 1991, Claimant was dismissed from service for failing to properly report an injury he allegedly sustained on May 28, 1991. The record discloses that Claimant first advised the Carrier he had been injured when he reported it to the Claims Department, which then notified his supervisor. Carrier's Rule X requires the immediate reporting of personal injuries suffered by employees. Form 1 Award No. 29684
According to Claimant's testimony, he thought he had aggravated a pre-existing back problem on May 28, 1991, the last day he worked before being furloughed for approximately three months. Three weeks later, Claimant sought medical attention for his back, at which time he was told this was a new injury. Claimant stated he had previously injured his back while at work, but had not reported that injury because he thought it was just a strain and it went away. He did not report this new injury until he was recalled for service.
This was Claimant's fifth personal injury while at work. Three of his previous injuries required him to lose between 66 and 219 days of work. Certainly, Claimant was familiar with Carrier's requirement regarding the prompt reporting of on-duty injuries. There is no question that he failed to meet this requirement in this case. Under the circumstances, we find no basis to disturb the Carrier's decision. The disciplinary action, in light of Claimant's record and the nature of the offense, was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.