Claimant began service with Carrier on July 14, 1972, as a section laborer and was working as such on June 22, 1981.
Claimant was dismissed frcqn all service of the Carrier effective May 12, 1982 as a result of an investigation on November 24, 1981 to determine his responsibility in connection with failing to report a personal injury which allegedly occurred on October 21, 1980, falsifying a statement for preparation of an alleged injury report on July 6, 1981, and falsifying a statement to Claim Agent Hayth and Roadmaster Tribble in connection with an alleged injury on July 17, 1981.
Organization premises its appeal on the basis that due to Claimant's limited educational background Claimant did not understand the nature of the questions being asked of him by Carrier's representatives at the time of their interviews. Additionally, Organization contends that it was prejudicial not to have advised Claimant that the statements that he was giving could or would be used against him at a subsequent time.
A fair reading of the testimony contained in the transcript, particularly Claimant's responses to the questions asked at the hearing, fails to support such contention. Claimant clearly understood his actions and the activity he was engaged in. Carrier's witnesses established that Claimant failed to make a timely report of his alleged injury, if it in fact occurred at all. Such was denied by Claimant, but Carrier chose to resolve that conflict in testimony against Claimant.
ir7e find no justification in the record that would warrant a conclusion by the Board that such action was arbitrary or capricious.
Claimant was found culpable for violation of Safety Rule 1001 which, in pertinent part reads:
The record is devoid of any evidence that Claimant complied with the mandates of safety Rule lool. Claimant did not report the alleged injury until July 6, 1981. The evidence concerning Claimant's medical condition clearly supports the conclusion that Claimant's injuries were the result of an automobile injury sustained prior to his employment, not as a result of any activity that took place on the railroad, contary to the contentions made by Claimant in his statement to Carrier's claim agent.
The Board is satisfied that Claimant was ably and aggressively represented throughout, there was sufficient credible evidence. adduced at the hearing to support Carrier's conclusion, and in view of the circumstances of Claimant attempting to make a false claim for compensation against his employer for an alleged injury that was supposed to have occurred some time prior and in the course of his employment with Carrier, Carrier's action in dismissing Claimant fran all services was wholly warranted.