f11i~1'Ili:i) 'Lit!'. AICU1aU.i, 'IUYI:Fk ~: a.a'fi~ FL RAILWAY (MIPAUY

 ul;3fb"li:) B:;U'fiiiS RL~UJV OF ~L'ILtdT1;tl~t:r:1: Of l4Al l.ilfl.ui.:1SS

 ;i'1'r"·'ili_.lI:I~T Ul:' ~Laiti: Claim ill behalf of former '1'ra,:f:man :.. T. GrLiz (.O1ura O ulvisioil, for reitlStatelilellt LO service witlt l:elliority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired and co:apensation for airy w_l11;e loss tie may have as a result of his removal from service LJovembdr 13, 1'379.

 1:i1)I:UU:S: IlrLs Public Law Board No. 15x2 finds LliaL the parties herein are Carrier and employee within tile meanin.- of tile Rail-...'ay Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In Lhis dispute tile claimant was a member of l:xLra Gati~- 6'2. Oil October 10, 197) trackman A. A. Sandoval told tilt forecaan that lie understood the claimant would not be coming back to lwor!:. because lie 'tad hurt iris back'on the job. From that date to the Lii,le of Llir_ investigation, do other member of tile gang -relayed ally inforlaatiou regarding a back. injury to the claimant.

 The foreman conveyed this information to the rr~admas ter and tiic track supervisor. They contacted the claimant and '.were told lie was off duty because lie had suffered a back injury. The claii;lanC ells absent Prow duty beginning October lu", 1979.

 Tile claimant was notified to attend a formal ilivsti,ation 1lovc1:iber 6, 1979 to develop all facts and place responsibility in connection witli his alleged absence from duty without proper authority be-itinin;; October 18, 1979 and his allegedly falsifying information given to Doctors JOiuison and hosieki oil October 3, 1979 (claim of all oil duLy, injury). Pursuant to the investigation the cl.sinlatiL :was disuissed from t;ie service of the Carrier.

 Tile Carrier contends that the claimant :was cdba·uliL from duty wiLhout authority acid Lliat tile evidence also establishes Ltiat t11e clai.la:.1nL l;aivr. i:als a ii;Lorulation Lo two doctors regarding ail ally-cd oil duty injury.

 1,re Lranscri.pL of 56 pages, as well as tile c.Jiibit.s introduced by the l:arties, have been carclully studied. There is a oreat deal oL conl:lict in Lestimony. There is ilo evidcalce which establi:;1les that the clailaant advised tile foreman he was injures on the job. '''lie claii.latit did testify that his back hurt, but tile evidence does not esLc:ulis'i that lie was injured oil tile job.


                                    Page 2


The claimant also testified that lie did not tell his foreman that lie wanted the next day off. The claimant testified that he told the foreman that lie might miss the next day in order to see a doctor. The claimant later testified that he did tell his foreman that 1=a had been hurt.

 The claimant failed to fill out an injury report and did not at any time request a leave of absence. The claimant testified tliaL he understood it was his responsibility to protect himself with a request for a leave of absence. 'the claimant testified at the hearing that he had been absent without proper authority since October 18, 1979 (Page 12 of Transcript).

 The Carrier introduced a statement by the foreman, and the Organization objectedsto the entire statement, but such was submitted into the record. This statement would be inadmissible except for the fact that the foreman appeared in person and testified and was subject to cross examination. The foreman admitted that he had authorized the claimant to be off October 9.

 A special agent for the Carrier testified that the claimant reported to the depot on October 15, 1979 claiming an on duty injury. He further testified that the claimant could not recall if the acci-
 dent occurred at Sands or Gisc on October 8, 1979.,

 The track supervisor, who was the claimant's immediate supervisor, testified that he had no knowledge of a back injury to the claimant and that the claimant never requested a leave of absence.

 A fellow member of the gang, A. A. Sandoval, testified that he heard the claimant tell foreman Damrell that: "If I don't feel right, I won't come to work tomorrow," but did not remember hearing the claimant say lie had hurt his back.
Another fellow member of the gang. testified that he heard claimant advise the foreman: "Willie, I don't think I'll work tomorrow. I am going to see the doctor to see what's wrong with my back." lie also testified that lie heard the claimant tell the foreman that his back: was bothering him because early in the day they had been unloading ties.

 Evidence indicates that during the time the claimant was laying off, lie was driving in his automobile at 2:30 a.m. The claimant further admitted he was in a car accident shortly after October 8, 1979.

 The evidence clearly establishes that the claimant failed to file an accident report as required by the rules of the Carrier.

 The Carrier contends that the claimant's car was totaled in the accident the claimant was involved in after October 8, 1979, but
                                        ls,Y.2 -Award No. 141

                                        Page 3


    there is no evidence to that fact, and interrogation of the claim-

    ' ant did not pursue the extent of the damage to the automobile in that accident.


    The claimant had a poor record, and there is no evidence which would justify overruling the decision of Carrier.


    AWARD: Claim denied.


                            ~~..._


                ' reston .Y. ,:Koore, C airmaxi

                !_:

                s


                              Organization Member


                              Carrier iember


    Dated August 19, 1980,