PARTIES TO DISPUTE: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and Chicago & North Western Transportation Company


      STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


      (1) The dismissal of Trackman Rufus Vernon for alleced failure to timely report an injury was without just and sufficient cause. (Organization's File-90-2729; Carrier's File p-11-17-390)


      (2) Trackman Rufus Vernon shall be allowed the remedy prescribed in Rule 10(d).


OPINION OF THE BOARD:
 This Board upor,the whole record and all the evidence finds and
 holds that the Employes and the Carrier involves! in this dispute a;-e
 respectively Employes and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway
 Labor Act as amended and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
 involved herein.
 On November 25, 1981, the Claimant was directed to appear for an
 investigation scheduled for December 3, 1981, on the following charge.

      "To determine your responsibility in connection with the injury you allegedly incurred on or about Ocotber 23, 1981, which eras brought to my attention on November 23, 1981; and your failure to report this alleged injury."

                          .~bo - 3~


The investigation, after several postponements, was held on December 29, 1981,
 at 10:30 a.m. The hearing commenced at 11:17 a.m. and the Claimant was -
 not in attendance. At 11:30 a.m., the Claimant appeared at the investi
 gation, and it was continued until January 18, 1982, and the record reflects
 that Mr. Vernon was not in attendance on that date. The Claimant was
 dismissed by aletter dated January 15, 1982. There is no question based -
 on the record that the Claimant had proper notice of the investigation,
 the postponement, and the continuation.
 The investigation makes clear that after having last worked on October 22, 1981, the Claimant reported to the Carrier's offices at Wood Street indicating he had a back injury. He was then sent to the Carrier's Proviso Office and spoke to Mr. R. H. Hanke, Manager of Maintenance Operations. The Claimant spoke to him about the back injury and presented the doctor's bill. According to Hanke the Claimant stated to him at this time that he received the injury at work October 23, out wasn't sure if he worked that day. Mr. Vernon then left for a doctor's appointment and later came back, but according to Hanke, was unable to fill out the appropriate forms. He was again instructed by certified letter dated November 25 to fill out the necessary accident reports in conjunc;:ion with the injury. The evidence also indicates that there was no verbal or written response regarding the injury between October 22 and the day of the investigation. Thus, based on the investigation, it is the conclusion of the Board that the Claimant failed to comply with instructions of his Supervisor and the rules of the Carrier requiring reports of injuries. We must conclude that the testimony of Hanke is true as it stands without rebuttal or refutation in the record. The Claimant was given ample opportunity to defend himself against the charge and failed to do so. It has-often been

                        _ 2 -

                                            PLB-2960 __`

                                            AWD. N0. 36


stated that failure to attend an investigation is at the employe's cwn
 peril and that the Carrier has the right to proceed and discipline based
 on that investigation if the charges are supported by substantial evidence.
 In this case, they are.
 The Claimant's failure to report the injury as required by the clearly
 promegated rules of the Carrier and per the instructions of Mr. Hanke is
 a serious offense. The relevant rules are quoted as follows: -

      "1. When physically able to do so, employes sustaining an injury of any kind while on duty or on Company property will r=port the injury and cause to the immediate supervisor or person in charge before leaving the Company premises.


      If emergency medical treatment of an injury is necessary after leaving company premises an immediate report will be made to the Supervisor or person in charge.


      2. A report of all accidents and injuries must be sent immediately to the Superintendent by the conductor, engineer, agent, yardmaster, foreman or person in charge, by wire, using prescribed form, giving extent of injuries and the names of the owners of theproperty damaged and the extent of damage. As soon as possible the-after,

      a full and detailed report must be made on Form 148 and forwarued to _

      the Superintendent. (For accidents and injuries to employees not -

      under the jurisdiction of a Division Superintendent, the person

      in charge must send the above reports to the supervising officer or

      department head.


3. Injured employe must make an sign astatement of facts in relation to the accident in his own handE·rriting on Form 148 as soon as possible; should he be unable to write, the statement should be ~,sritten at his dictation, and after being read by or to him, he shell sign it or make his mark; the person writing and reading the statement shall sign the same as witness." These rules are reasonable because if an immediate report is not made, it is difficult for the Carrier to make an immediate investigation to determine what the extent and cause of the injury is and whether or not the injury was potentially due to Company liability. Discharge, in the railroad industry, has previously been upheld for similar offenses, particularly when they are accompanied by poor work records. In this case, it is the determination of the Board that discharge is appropriate. The Claimant's
 ~p 'loo -3b

 conduct was contrary to the reasonable rules of the Carrier, and his past

 record is less than exemplary.

 AWARD

 Claim denied.

 6i1 Vernon, Chairman

 J.J. D.~ Carrier oember

 H. 6. Harper, Employe Member