This Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended; that this Board has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the dispute herein: that this Board is duly constituted by an Agreement dated July 23, 1982; and that all parties were given due notice of the hearing held on this matter.
By notice dated January 17, 1985, the Carrier charged Claimant, a Laborer on Extra Gang 8821, with failing to promptly report an on-duty injury which he allegedly suffered on June 11, 1985. The following facts were adduced at a June 21, 1985 investigation.
Claimant allegedly hit himself in the knee with a spike maul at 10:00 a.m. on June 11, 1985 while the gang was performing track work near Reno, Nevada. Claimant testified that his knee hurt only for a moment. However, he began to experience pain in his leg two days later. Despite the pain, Claimant continued working. Claimant, the Gang Foreman, and the Assistant Gang Foreman concur that Claimant did not report.the alleged injury on June 11, 12, or 13, 1985. On June 14, 1985, Claimant asked the Foreman for the location of the Veterans' Hospital. He told the Foreman that he had injured his knee three days previously and wanted to obtain some medication. The Foreman told Claimant that if he had incurred an on-duty injury, he should fill out the appropriate form. Contending that it was minor, Claimant resisted reporting the injury. He said it was unnecessary to fill out the paperwork. While the record is unclear, a physician apparently examined
Claimant and he prescribed a drug for treatment. Claimant did not lose any workdays.
Carrier Rule 4004 requires employees to notify proper authority of any injury suffered while on duty or on company property and to make a written report on the prescribed form as soon as feasible. Employees have a duty to immediately report any on-duty injuries if they are physically able to do-so. Prompt reporting of on-duty injuries is essential so the Carrier can correct any hazardous situation, thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding the injury, limit its legal liability, and, most importantly, provide the injured worker with the necessary medical treatment. Public Law Board No. 3241, Award No. 14.
Claimant's sole excuse for not reporting the injury in this case is that he thought that it was minor. To support his assertion, Claimant points out that he did not lose any work time due to the mishap. However, the record reflects that the injury was far more serious than a minor scrape. Claimant's contention that the injury was minor is inconsistent with his later assertion that medical treatment was necessary. Evidently, Claimant simply wanted to avoid the burden of filling out a form. Claimant evaded his obligation to make a written report of his injury, even after his Foreman urged him to fill out the appropriate form. Claimant had been injured in the past while working for the Carrier, and, so, he was well aware of the mandatory procedures for reporting all
Public Law Board No. 3241 Award No. 20, Page 3 on-duty injuries. Therefore, the Carrier presented substantial evidence proving that claimant committed the charged offense.John B. LaRocco
Neutral Member