PARTIES) ATCRISON,'TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY TO ) DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF KkINTENANCE OF WAY a`g'LOYES

 STATEMENT OF CLAL'1I: That the Carrier violated the provisions of the current greement when on August 30, 1984 it dismissed helper/ Truck Driver Mr. E. F. Lucas without first according Mr. Lucas a fair and impartial hearing, said action being excessive and in abuse of discretion; That the Carrier will now be required to reinstate Mr. E. F. Lucas to his former position with seniority and all other rights restored unimpaired and with compensation
 L~ r all wa-e loss.
 o

 FINDINGS: This Public Law Board \o. 1582 finds that the parties
 .ie~ are Carrier and employee within the meanin- of the Railway
 Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In this disvute the claimant was employed by the carrier as a B&B Helper in 1970. On Satu=day, July 14, 1984, the claimant was working on the bridge iocatel at ~iilepos t 148.9. ire cl ai.nant eras allegedly standing on a brace that i:ad been sprayed ;with a ire extinvuishar and a substance from ;.Lie fire eatin,;uiSlier caused the claimant to slip ant! injure his back. The claimant did not report tie alleged injury to his immediate supervisor, out sought medical attention on the following i-londay, July 16, 1984. He was treated and released oa July 27, 1984.

 After being released from the hospital, the claimant contacted his foreman on August 1, 1934 and informed him that he had suffered an on-duty injury on July 14 and wished to fill out the required accident forms. By letter dated August 2Q, 1934 the Carrier notified the claimant to attend an investigation August 30, 196:+ con cerning a report that the claimant allegedly misrepresented the facts and/or withheld information in connection with an alleged incident of injury that ae claizs was sustained at 10:30 a.Ln. July 14, 1984, at Milepost 148.9, Longview District. Pursuant to the investigation, the claimant was found guilty and dismissed from the service of the Carrier.

 The claimant did not attend theinvestigation, and the Union is unaware of the reason the claimant choaa not to attend. Tina :~oari has examined the transcript of record and all the evidence az:d exhibits submitted. Tae claimant's lack: of interest in the disposition of the case and his failure to attend the investigatioindicates the lack of desire to work for the Carrier. Under these


circumstances, the Board finds no justification for overruling the decision of the Carrier.

 AWARD: Claim denied.

                          ~' Preston J'. :-foore, C. airman


                          Union Member


                          Carrier =Member


Date at Chicago, Illinois August 19,1985

          1