PARTIES Brotherhood of -Maintenance of Way Employes
 _TU and
 DISPUTE: Southern Pacific f-ransportation Company
 STATEriENT "1. That the Carrier violated the cur-
 OF Ci-_~-_~II·I: rent Agreement when. it dismissed
 Track Laborer R. P. Binder, said
 action being excessive, unduly harsh
 and in abuse of discretion.
 2. That the Carrier reinstate Claimant
 with seniority and all other rights
 restored unimpaired with pay for
 all loss of earnings suffered and
 has record cleared of all charges."
 FII'JDTNiGS _
 Upon the whole record, after- hearing, the Board finds that the
 parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning 07
 the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is dul,
 constitute=d under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of thIr_
 parties and the subject matter.

 On July ?^. 19136, while working as a Track Laborer. Claimant
 ,a7 leoediv injured his right log on a piece of ballast whi, ir=
 ~p q3q- (35

crosslno the track. There were no witnesses to this incident. In spite of his pain, Claimant continued to work for the remainder of the dav. On the following morning he reported to the job site and informed the Assistant Foreman of the previous injury and indicated that he was going to a doctor. The doctor then treated Claimant arid gave him a note saying that he should not work for five days. Claimant had no further contact with his supervision. but filled outan accident form on that day and mailed it to the Superintendent's office. He was subsequently informed (by a letter dated July 31, 1986) of his removal for service because of his alleaed violation of a number of Carrier's rules by failing to file a personal injury--report and falsifying such report. Following an investigative hearing, Claimant was dismissed from Carrier's service, having been found guilty of the charges.


Carrier insists that Claimant failed to fill out the report at the proper time of the alleged injury and in so doing violated Carrier's- rules. Furthermore, he failed to indicate to any supervision of his subsequent lay-off for a period of five working days. Petitioner on the other hand araues that Claimant properly notified Carrier of his injury on the day following the

X43°) - t35 .

incident -and then after seeing a -doctor. filled out a m-ogcal accident report. Thus he complied with all of Carrier's requirements. -


The record indicates that Claimant had been involved in at least six other (known accidents while an employee. He was aware of the proper procedure. It is also apparent that he did not indeed report the accident on the day that. it occurred, which was in direct violation of Carrier's rules. Furthermore. he never r_ndicatod that. the would be off following his visit to the doctor for treatment of the alleged incident and accident. Thus. he kny-·4 what the procedure was and did not complv. However. obiect.ivell :. it is apparent that Claimant did in part at least attempt to conform to Carrier's standard requirements. He must bear- some culpabalitv. however. for his failure to comply with the speoilic requirement* of which he was aware. I t is this Board's belief that Claimant shall be given one last chance to LonfOrn-to Carrier s rules arid comply with requirements with respect: to reporting accidents. Therefore, he shall be reinstated to hi=_ former position with all rights unimpaired but w.ithoutompenstationfcr time-lost a_, result of kris respvrtsibilit; fat


the incident.
                                                ~u3ct -135


A~Jr-)RD

              Claim sustained in part. Claimant =shall

              be returned to service with all rights _

              unimwaired but without compensation Tor

              time lost..


ORDER
              Carrier will comply with the Award h=rein within 30 days from the date hereof. -


              1. t·1. . -L-i-e-ber-*19-F -Neutral-Chairman


C. FF~o ovee Member .. J tuart, Carrier hembei

 San Frans i o, Calitornia -
 December 2 5 1088