Upon the whole record, after hearing. the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of =he Railway Labor Act. as amended. and that this Board is oua·· constituted under- Public Law 89-456 and has Jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.
Claimant herein was a-Trackman. having been employed by Carrier an I·lav. 30_ 1973, and was worF:inq in the New Me:aco division. Claimant was in.iured while at work on October 7. 1986 ann- told his Foreman that he was injured. He did not wish to report t,k~ injury at that time because of possible harassment from Carrier -7-7-7'x-/ &D
officers. fhe record indicates that Claimant's Foreman qavc Claimant the followinq day. October 8, off in order to see a doctor. Furthermore, the doctor made contact with Carrier'-s office to notify them of Claimant's being there at the time. Following the doctor visit, Claimant was off for an extended period of time with the knowledge of his Roadmaster. He had not asked for an injury report form (Form No. 1421) because he did not know the form by its name or number. His wife attempted to secure a form in order to report the injury and was denied access to the form. Finally Claimant did indeed fill out such a form on March 27, 1987. On Nay 6, 1987 he was notified to attend a formal investigation for the purpose of developing the facts and circumstances with respect to his alleged falsification of an on duty injury allegedly occurring on October 7, 1986. Following the investigation Claimant was dismissed from service having beet found guilty.
Carrier argues that Claimant was properly found guilty of fraudulently claiming an on duty injury which is a dishonest act warranting dismissal. In addition, Carrier notes that Claimant s failure to submit Form 1421 on the=_ date that the alleged injury occurred is also considered a serious a serious infraction. warranting dismissal.
According to the Organization even the Division Engineer's chiot clerk testified that she knew -of the injury on October 9, 1986 and the Claimant's Roadmaster was also aware of the circumstances since he witnessed a statement from Claimant's Foreman on October 10. Petitioner also note-s that the Roadmaster, involved refused
The Board notes that the record fails to substantiate by significant evidence Carrier's allegation that Claimant falsified an on duty injury. The fact of the matter was that the record was clear that Claimant did indeed sustain an injury on the date in question. The fact that he failed to fill out an accident report in prompt fashion was -unfortunate and contrary to Carrier-s rules. but in part was aided and abetted by lack of action on tile part of Carrier functionaries and officials. Furthermore, durino the ensuing period Claimant was apparently carried on medical. leave of absence until the time of the investigation. The Board also notes that. at the time of the claim being filed against Carrier. there had been no release from Claimant's doctor for him to resume service.
Based on the entire record the Board is of the ooinion that Claimant was improperly dismissea by Carrier. He should oc-: restored to =service with all rights unimpaired subject to medxcat clearance. However-, Carrier bears no financial liability for an, lost Pay during the period in question- -since there was r1U