Findings: The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, firs that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated March 1, 1976, that it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing held.
Claimant was initially employed by Carrier, on January 28, 1974, as a Section Laborer. Claimant was working in that capacity on January 7, 1981, where Claimant contacted his Section Foreman L. W. Ford, and informed him that on the morning of January 8, 1981 that he wanted to be marked off sick because he had to go to a doctor. Approximately two days later-Claimant Nash contacted Roadmaster L. P. Porter's office advising that he had injured his left leg and that he was seeing a doctor in Richmond. Roadmaster Porter asked Claimant at three different times in the conversation if he had hurt himself on the job to which Claimant allegedly responded that
Claimant virtually disappeared from sight for approximately seven months. Carrier learned of Claimant's whereabouts sometime in April of 1981 as a result of a notice of lien from the Railroad Retiranent Hoard to Carrier. Efforts were made to contact Claimant for several months as tell as to determine if any Cr-37 (injury Report Form) had been filed. Carrier did not learn of Claimant's alleged work related injury until approximately a year after its supposed occurrence. As a result thereof under date of January 15, 1982, Claimant was sent a notice which in pertinent part read:
The Board finds that Claimant was ably and aggressively represented at the hearing, was afforded ample opportunity to address the charges, was afforded the opportunity, and did in fact, call witnesses on his behalf. The Hoard finds that there was sufficient credible evidence adduced thereat to support Carrier's conclusion. We cannot agree with Organization's contention that the hearing officer behaved in a prejudicial manner towards Claimant. There has been no showing by Organization on Claimant's behalf that Claimant was treated unfairly or prejudicially in any way. Claimant failed to make a timely report of an injury to such a degree - more than a year after its occurrence - that it virtually obliterated Carrier's opportunity to make a timely investigation into the circumstances of the alleged injury, or take any corrective action, if any were called for. See Third Division Award No. 19298 which, in pertinent part, held: