Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOAR!)
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 31992
Docket No. MW-32518
97-3-95-3-426

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Charles J. Chamberlain when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:





FINDINGS:

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

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.
Form 1 Award No. 31992
Page 2 Docket No. MW-32518
97-3-95-3-426

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




The Claimant was working on his assignment as Extra Gang Laborer on January 2.1, 1994, when he felt a soreness in his back. He reported the injury to General Foreman RS. Decker, Jr., who transported him to Huntington, Oregon, where the Claimant met with Mr. George Altenburg, Manager of Track Programs who gave the Claimant an accident report to fill out. In discussion with Mr. Altenburg, the Claimant suggested that the January 2.1, 1994, incident and resulting pain may relate to a prior injury that he had sustained over a year ago and which had been bothering him off and on during the past year.


Mr. Mtenburg contacted Mr. Rex Fennewald, Director of Track Maintenance and Mr. Don Frazier, the Claim Agent and the Claimant discussed the incident with them by phone. Following the phone conversation, Mr. Altenburg testified that the Claimant tore up the accident report and threw it in the waste basket. Subsequently, the Claimant requested permission to see a doctor and was examined by Dr. Herbert H. Hendricks on February 14, 1994.


Dr. Hendricks advised that the Claimant should refrain from any and all work activities for a period of two weeks. On February 24, 1994, the Claimant was examined again by Dr. Hendricks and underwent an MRI exam which revealed that the Claimant bad a herniated lumbar disc which would necessitate the Claimant being out of service for at least 60 days.


The medical findings of Dr. Hendricks were reported to Mr. Stan Fedderhoff, Claim Agent, who instructed the Claimant to fill out an injury accident repotK. The Claimant filed the personal injury accident report on February 28, 1994.


Subsequently, on March 11, 1994, the Claimant received a notice to appear for an Investigation on March 21, 1994. The notice stated in part as follows:



Form I Award No. 31992
Page 3 Docket No. MW-32518
97-3-95-3-426







Following the Investigation the Claimant received a letter dated April 15, 1994, from Mr. J. C. Flynn, Manager Track Maintenance which read in part as follows:



Form I Award No. 31992
Page 4 Docket No. MW-32518
97-3-95-3-426



The claim involved in this dispute was progressed by the Organization in behalf of the Claimant up to and including the highest officer of the Carrier without a satisfactory resolution.


During the handling of the dispute on the property, the Organization contended that the Claimant was denied due process as the charge letter was not precise and additionafly the Carrier violated Rule 48(x) by holding the Investigation more than 30 days after the occurrence. The Organization's position is that the occurrence date was Januarv 24, 1994.


With respect to the charge that the letter of March 11, 1994, was not precise, we cannot agree.




Additionally, there is no basis for the Organization's charge that the Investigation was not held within the time frame of Rule 48(x).


The Claimant's action surrounding the January 24, 1994, incident reveal uncertainty as to whether he hurt his back on January 24, 1994, or was it a recurrence of an injury sustained in April of 1992.


While subsequent events and examinations did reveal that the Claimant may have sustained an injury on January 24, 1994, the frg officja/ record was the injury report filed by the Claimant on February 28, 1994.


The sequence of events that took place from January 24, 1994, until February 28, 1994, clearly reveal that the responsible Carrier officials were making every effort to accommodate the Claimant on his and their concerns for what happened on January 24, 1994. The Claimant did contact his supervisor and was advised to file a personal injury
Form 1 Award No. 31992
Page 5 Docket No. MW-32518


report. The Claimant filed a personal injury report, however, it was the Claimant's personal assessment of the January 24, 1994, incident that played a most important role in this dispute. The Claimant stated to his immediate supervisor that it was possible that the pain he experienced on January 24, 1994, could have been a recurrence of an injury sustained in 1992.


The record shows that a phone conversation between the Claimant and other Carrier officials on January 24, 1994, resulted in their acquiescing with his account of what may have happened on January 24, 1994.


It was the Claimant who engaged in the phone conversation with Mr. W. R Fennewald, Director of Track Maintenance and Mr. D. Frazier, Claim Agent, and it was the Claimant who tore up the personal injury report that he had previously filled out.


If there was any question or uncertainty on the part of the Claimant as to his condition, he should have let the personal injury report he had filed on January 24, 1994, remain intact. The fact that he did not was not the fault of the Carrier officials involved in this particular phase of the dispute.


Accordingly, there is no basis for the Organization's position that January 24, 1994, was a critical point in the application of Rule 48(x) and the Carrier's violation of said rule.


With respect to the merits of the dispute, the Claimant must bear responsibility for the role he played in the sequence of events that occurred between January 24, 1994, and February 28, 1994.


The Claimant's initial assessment was proven wrong and the record reveals that be erred in protecting his own interests when he tore up the January 24, 1994, personal injury report No one forced him to tear it up. He could have let it stand but chose to tear it up.


Accordingly, there is basis for the Carrier's charge against the Claimant and the discipline assessed of a letter of reprimand placed on his record is not unreasonable, excessive or capricious.

Form I Award No. 31992
Page 6 Dockct No. MW-32518
97-3-95-3-426

Based on the foregoing, it is the decision of this Board that the claim must be denied.



      Claim denied.


                        ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.

                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of May 1997.