PARTIES TO DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF CLAIP
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NUMBER 3445
 Award Number: 72
 Case Number: 72

BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

And

SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY


Claim on behalf of Lewis Jaynes, SSN 253-80-3381, for restoration to service with seniority and other rights unimpaired, and pay at his respective rate foxy all time lost subsequent to February 17, 1989.

 FINDINGS
C1aimanqi,dnlter8~ tlie Carrier'~s

 service.on,SeptembAr 10, x.971.

 Before beginning, his vacation,(the week of June 20, 1988) Claimant told his co-workers,that. he'nad arthriti,s;'n the leg an4,planned to see a physician. At the end of his vacation, June 27,-1988; Claimant did not return to his assignment but rather, called his contract foreman L. Jefferson, ~advising-him,that he (Claimant) Would be'of£tsck,with back,

problems probably through the beginning of 1989.

 Claimant's telephone bill for the applicable period shows several

 telephone calls to Jefferson, the last one being on July 4, 1988, Jefferson-

 repeatedly testified that ClaimantIdid not advise -him of any injury to~

 Claimant's back- ,:,·
 34YS-7a

 Claimant was examined by several physicians during the period June 27 to September 2, 1988. By letter dated September 2, 1988, Dr. Clark stated:

I examined-him,today and am ppable to find any clear

 herniated disc ; -- , - - -

 evidence of a

 Track Supervisors F. R. Manning and J. D. Hariss as well as Jefferson testified that Claimamt'never reported any problem or personal injury prior

 to December 1988.

land reported that he had suffered 'a personal injury sometime between May 27 and June.27, 1988. ,Claimant.ac,knowledged that he did not report the alleged injury at the, time, iE occurred~and,that he was.unFertain as to the exact day

 the injury.was sustained. - ,.

 Celephoned Divisibri Eng~neer C. 8. Stinei,

 On July 27, 1·88·, the Railroad Retirement Board 8ihedp lien against , the' Carrier after that Board had received an application for benefits from Claimant.- On that form, Claimant's last day of work is listed as June 17, 1988 and his date of Injury as June 27, 1988.

 By letter dated January 13, 1989, Claimant was-directed. to atte~

 formal investigation on charges that he £4iled to report the alleged,.injury

 1 -11

 violated Rule 1000 and falsified an on duty injury that did not actually occur. The investigation was postponed, but was held on February 6,.1989. At that time, evidence was adduced which led to Claimant's dismissal by letter dated February 17, 1989.



    Rule 1000 provides: .


    An employee who sustains a personal injury,while,on duty must report ..

    it, before leaving Company premises, to his immediate supervisor or to -

    the employee in charge of the work, who will promptly report the facts

    through the channels.


    If an employee at any time marks off or obtains medical attention for

    an on-duty injury_Dz occupational illness, he 'must promptly notify his ,.

    supervisah.


    The issue, to be decided in this dispute is whether Claimant was -


                                                          I

dismissed for just cause under the Agreement; and if not, what should the

 remedy be . ,~ '~. , - I
                                                            r,


          ~.I ' . I . ..


The position of ttie -Carrier ~i"s .that Claimant was, dismissed for just cause. The Carrier maintains that it has proved conclusively that Claimant is guilty o,f each oCtbe·chargesLa4ai.nst him. It cite s', Claimant's own admission and the testimony of several witness to prove that he failed to promptly report the,alleged injury as required by Rule 1000- The Carrier cites Claimant's physician's statement that there was noIY injury or evidence, of herniated disc in September as proof that Claimant was not injured at that time, falsified his report when he did report it and did not report the

 injury on July 4. Similarly, the Carrier contends the Ifalsific'ation is ":L i
                                                        ~I'``,.-=


proved by the RRB lien, in which Claimant alleges he was injured 10 days -

 after his last work day; he could not have been injured on the job, as he

                                    . . .. ' r

contended. ,

                                                        t

As to the Organization's procedural arguments, the Carrier contends that it complied with all the requirements of Rule 40(a) regarding the timing of the investigation pointing out that the basis of the discipline is
 the December 27 report of absence, not the absence itself.

 The position'o,f the Organization is that Claimant was unjustly dismissed b'aspd.on,~rocedural',grbunds as well as the merits:

 Orr the procedural question: the Organization ~charges'a violation of t~iel'

 10 day limit, In Rule 40(a) based on its allegation that the Carrier_knew of the alleged vio].ation'in June_'or, icily and did not take action until January.

 On the merits,; the Organization contends that Claimant, notified his. supervisor of hisl;me4ical problem,as soon as.he (Claimant) was aware of i

 1Y '
 ,'I

 The Organization maintains that Claimant advised Jefferson of his problemir1

 their July 4 telephone conversation. The Organization admits that Claimant.,

 was "tardy in reporting his injuries and, trying to be truthful."

 After review of the entire, record, the Boarii.finds that ,Claimant was

 dismissed for just 'cause, ,

 The Carrier has established by substantive credible evidence in the record that Claimant violated Rule 1000 by failing to report an alleged on the job injury in a timely fashion as set forth in the rule and for falsifying an on duty injury. The record clearly indicates, and Claimant admission and the Carrier witnesses' testimony support, that Claimant did, not report his alleged injury as required by Rule 1000. Moreover Claimant, did not know what his injury was or when it occurred because it did not occur; there was no injury. The RRB lien notice showed that he was.injured.,, after he went_off work. As late as September, he still did not appear to be,
 ;LI45~ -7a

 '.1 1

 injured, although he apparently had some discomfort. Whatever Claimant's medical problems, they were not the result of an on-the-job injury.

 However, on-the-job injury is what Claimant alleged and it was false. The maintenance of honesty in the employment relationship is essential. Fair dealing between the partied is the bedrock. of the labor-management relationship. Claimant has violated that trust.- His conduct fully warrants

 dismissal.

 The Organization's procedural objection is without basis,

 the Carrier's cognizance of Claimant's offense was clearly December 27, 1988
 because his offense'was·in the repdrting of the alleged injury and absence, n.
 not in the absence itself. The notice and investigation was held in a

 timely fashion according to Rule 40(a).'

 The date of

 AWARD
        p


    Claim denied.


Neutr ember '

          .a.r


Carrier Member
Organization Member