Award Number: 39
 Case Number: 39
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
 AND
 SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM


FINDINGS
 Claimant, at the time of the dispute in question, was employed as a Machine Helper. By letter dated March 22,, 1985, Claimant was notified to attend an investigation concerning charges that he falsified information on his pre-employment application filed with Carrier. An investigation was held on March 28, 1985. By letter dated April 11, 1985, Claimant was dismissed from service.

 The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether Claimant was dismissed for just cause under the Agreement.

 The position of the organization is that Claimant was wrongfully dismissed by Carrier.

Initially, the Organization contends that Claimant's
 procedural rights were violated, in that Carrier failed to
 specify in the initial letter of charges as to what Claimant had
 allegedly falsified in his pre-application form, asserting that -

 Claimant's rights were impermissibly affected, since he could _

 not prepare an adequate defense due to the vagueness of the
 charges. -
 Regarding the substantive charge, the Organization argued -
 that Carrier was fully aware of Claimant's medical status.
 Specifically, the Organization contends that Claimant, in a
 deposition taken a year prior to the charges, informed Carrier of
 the injuries sustained by him in an accident on May 7, 1975. The
 Organization alleges that Carrier, once informed of Claimant's
 physical status, took no action prior to the charges at issue.
 The Organization cites Claimant's testimony to establish that a
 Carrier official was present at the deposition in question, and
 argues that no question exists that Carrier knew of the accident
 ,and injuries well in advance of the charges. The Organization
 argues that Carrier only decided to institute charges after
 Claimant was injured while on duty, in an effort to avoid payment
 to Claimant.

 The position of the Carrier is that Claimant was properly dismissed for falsifying his pre-employment application.
                                              3uuS-3g


      Initially, Carrier contends that Claimant was proven guilty `-

of the charge through substantial evidence. Carrier cites
 Claimant's testimony that he admitted to personally filling out
 the pre-employment application, and admitted answering "no" to
 questions concerning whether he had previously sustained in-

 juries. Carrier further cites the testimony of Engineer -
 A. D. Smith that on February 4, 1985, he was informed that
 Claimant had been previously injured as a result of an automobile
 accident, and that Claimant had filed suit as a result of those

 injuries. Carrier additionally cites a-record of Claimant's -

 lawsuit filed on April 7, 1976 in the Circuit Court of Knox --
 County, Tennessee, which it contends conclusively establishes
 that Claimant in fact sustained injuries and failed to indicate
 such on his pre-employment application. Finally, Carrier cites a
 pretrial deposition dated April 7, 1976, which, it asserts,
 further confirms that Claimant sustained the injuries in ques
 tion. Carrier contends that the evidence as a whole leaves no
 doubt that Claimant falsified his pre-employment application and
 demonstrated a lack of honesty regarding his prior injuries.
 Carrier further contends that Claimant would never have been
 hired initially if he had honestly and accurately completed his
 application.

 After review of the record, the Board finds that the claim must be denied.

                          3 -

                                                3yy5=~q


It is not the purpose of this Board to rehear an investigation that Carrier held but only to determine if the discipline imposed was arbitrary,' capricious or an abuse of discretion.

      Carrier has adequately sustained the charge against Claim-

ant. The court records and deposition cited by Carrier clearly
 establish that Claimant was involved in an automobile accident in
 1975, sustained injuries as a result of that accident, and
 subsequently filed suit pertaining to the accident. Claimant, in
 his pre-employment application, stated that he had never sus
 tained injuries and had never filed suit as a result of injuries
 sustained. In short, Claimant intentionally falsified his
 application in order to conceal the injuries sustained by him.
 Claimant's actions constituted clear and gross dishonesty, and
 misled Carrier into hiring him. Absent Claimant's misrepresenta
 tions, Carrier would not have hired him and is clearly under no =
 obligation to retain him at this stage.

 AWARD
      Claim denied.


                              Neutr Member


                              Carrier Member


                                  i ati em er


DATE: D<T 21
                          4