_ AWARD NO. 83
 · Case No. 97



STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim in behalf of former Trackman J. Valdez,
 Us Angeles Diviion "for reinstatement to his former position with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired and compensation - . for wage loss beginning July 29, 1977 continuing forward until he is restored to service.

 FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 1552 finds that the parties -
 per'- e= are Carrier arid Employee within the meaning of the Railway
 Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In, this dispute a formal investigation was held to determine the
 acts and circumstances surrounding the claimant reporting an alleged injury or. July 5, 1977 which he contended occurred while he :vas on duty July 1, 1977. The claimant was charged with violation of Rules 2, 5, 14, 16 and 31, and pursuant to the investigation was found ; guilty and discharged.

 The Organization contends that the discharge was not justified. The Organization contends the claimant had valid justification for be1'_eving that he was injured on July 1, and furthermore the Organization contends that the claimant was harassed during the investigation. The Organization also contends that the Carrier is required to make a preliminary inquiry into incidents such as the one involving the claimant herein. The Organization further contends that the charge -,.-2s vague and indefinite.

 The Board has examined all of the charges of the Organization. The.
 carpe is sufficient as it states: "To develop the facts and circum-
 stances concerning your reporting on July 5 an alleged injury which
 ^cu claim occurred on July 1."

 There was no necessity to hold a preliminary inquiry. It was obvious that the claimant reported an injury on July 5 which he alleged had. occurred on July 1. Evidence and testimony of record indicates that the claimant contends he sustained a personal injury to his wrist on July 1,.1977, althcugh he admits that lie does, not know what time of day the injury occurred. I-Then the claimant was taken to the hospital, tba examining physician stated that he had a ganglion cyst. He further stated that the cyst was not caused by any injury.

 The evidence is conclusive that on July 5 the claimant repored an injury which allegedly occurred on July 1. Evidence also establishes that the claimant did not report the alleged injury on July 1. If the claimant's testimony is that he injured himself on July 1 and
 _._,, pI 315$2, Award No. 83


failed to report the injury for four days, and such testimony is not persuasive, the claimant is filing a false injury report. Under such a set of circumstances it o,ould 'De justifiable for the Carrier to find that the claimant violated the rules o= the C2r-

 The Board has very carefully examined all o£ the Organization's allegations regarding procedural errors by the Carrier and finds no support for such charges. Under all of the circumstances herein., after a careful study of all the evidence, it is the opinion o f the Board that the evidence produced does not justify overruling the decision of the Carrier.
 AWARD. Claus denied. ,:
 - Pr ,i,:~,`oore, whai:.-man
                                                  .


                                          ,s f _

                  ' rganlZatlOn :12iPDE'.r


                            GarrieVAember


Dated November 27, 1978