-





      Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

      to and

      Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company -

      Statement

      of Claim: Carrier violated the effective Agreement, by d.ismi::sing Labnree

      Larry Williams, November 6, 1975 on unjust and unprovan charges

      and failing to hold a fair and impartial hearing. Claimant

      Larry Williams shall be reinstated immediately and paid for

      all time held out of service

      Findings: The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and afl evidence.

      finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee witl-ain the rueanino of

      the Railway Labor Act, as amended,, that this Board is duly constituted by

      Agreement dated February 2, 1976, that it has jurisdiction of the parties

      and the subject matter, and that the parties were given due notice of =he

      hearing held. .

      Claimant Laborer after filling out an employment application in

      July 1975 was hired on August 4, 1975. He was off three weeks in late

      September and early October 1975 with swelling of the knee. Claimant was

      sent a notice of investigation, on October 13, 1975, in pertinent part,

      reading:


                " ....to determine your responsibility in connection with falsification of your applicati.~; For emplojn4ent. Form

                PER-100, in that you answers"no" ro the question.- .

                "Have you ever had: knee injuries, disorders or treatment

4

                            PLO «~O

                            _2_ Award No. 10


As a result of the investigation held, on October 29, 1975 in connection with this charge, Carrier concluded Claimant guilty as charged. He was dismissed from service, effective November 6, 1975.
 It is clear from the record established that Claimant had a knee disorder before applying for employment. The evidence offered by Claimant discloses that he had, at least, two prior instances of disorder of the knees- One instance occurred five years ago (1970) and the other, three years ago (1972), preceding the then current hospitalization, October 1975, for a knee disorder. While Claimant might have thought he was acting in good faith his medical record speaks to the contrary. Claimant's interpretation of his medical history and his wilful withholding of such important medical information from a prospective employer was deceitful. The fraudulent representation causes his contract of employment to be nullified- Tn this connection see Firs t Division Award 15570, Second Division 1934, Third Division Awards 20225 and 18103 among others.'
 The Board finds that Claimant was accorded due process, that there was sufficient competent evidence to support Carrier's conclusion and that Claimant falsified his employment application. The discipline assessed neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. This claim will be declined.

 Award: Claim denied-

    A

                        -


    '.', OL

            ^


M. A. Christie, Employee Member G. C. 1?siwarc':,, ":~rriar ,'.

 <Irthu~'~f Van- :Dart, Chairuwn
 - and Neutral Member

 Issued at Falmouth, Massachusetts, May 31, 1979.