'UBLIC LAW ,BOARD NUMBER 3530
PARTIES TO bISPUTE .'~,,~,
Award Number: 105

 Case Number;. 105'

 BROTHERHOOD OF'MAINTENANCE'OF WAY EhtfLOYES

 STATEMENT OF CLAM
NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAIY,WAY COMPANY-,'

 Claimant, R.L. Stanley, P.O. Box 162, Premier_ WV 24878 was dismisses

 from service on December 29,'1988 for alleged responsibility of falisi_ying his,ApplicatioA of. Employment and pre-employment medical questionaire.=-Cha1m was filed accordance with the Ylalway Labor. Act and agreement provisions. .Em~'loyes request he be reinstated with pay for all lost time with seniority and vacation rights unimpaired.

 FINDINGS
Claimant entered the Carrier's service in 1981

 By letter dated August 3, 1988, Claimant was notified,td attend a formal investigation of charges he falsified his Application for Employment and related medical examination questionnaire. The formal investigation was postponed twice and finally was held on December 16, 1988._ By letter dated December 29, 1988, Claimant was dismissed based on evidence adduced at the

 formal investigation.

 The question to be decided in this dispute is whether Claimant was dismissed for just cause under the Agreement; and if not, what should the

 remedy be.
 On November 27, 1978, Claimant was injured whilelemployed as a miner. These injuries were sufficiently serious to warrant 'a finding of partial permanent disability.'. Based on several medical examinations.between 1980 and 1985; Claimant had been found to be 12X disabled.
Carrier. On his em'plpyment application, he stated that he was in good
 health with no abnormalities or disabilities.. Claimant signed the form,
 certifyipg_that thgiari'Tormation,wgs~.true and.accurate'and acknowledging that
 any.'false statement 'or:`misrepres'e'yyftation would. justify dismissal.

 also completed a pre-employment. physical examination during which no, back

 problems were discovered.

 Claimaut'answered a series of questions at, the, .

 physical examinatio'rt stating that he did not had any back trouble and had not received workman's compensation. Based on this information Claimant was employed as a laborer. By letter dated August 2, 1988, the Carrier's, Medical Director stated that had he known about Claimant's medical/injury problems, he would have disqualified Claimant from a,laborer position. '

 During a routine discussion on July 29, 1988, Carrier Claim Agent Allen~, George told.Division Engineer J. A. McCracken that Claimant had previously received disability for a back injury. McCracken researched 'the matter and'"_','· learned of the above-stated disability. ,

 Article XI of the Agreement provides:

 Section 2 - Omission or Falsification of Information
 An employee who has been accepted for employment in accordance with Section 1 will not 6e terminated or disciplined by the carrier for furnishing incorrect information in connection with an application for' employment or for withholding information therefrom unless the information involved was of such a nature that the employee would not
 have been,hired if.the carrier.,had had timely knowledge of ii

 The position of the Carrier is that Claimant was dismissed for just cause under ttie Agreement, The Carrier contends that.'Cfaimant 'knowingly falsified his tpmploymenp:.applicatipp and the, answers provided :during the medical examination. The Carrier also cites Claimant's testimony that he understood the question regarding'back trouble but answered it,incorredtly and points to the language on the em ploymentapplicwtion~.relating to injuries. The Carrier contends that Claimant has violated the trust which

 existed between him and the Carrier and that by the terms of the employment form and well established principles, 'it is 'warranted,' in .'dismissing m Claimant.

 The position of the Organization

 is that Claimant ways .unjustly

 dismissed. The Organization contends that Claimant did not. have the
 education to'fully comprehend the employment application or the written'
 questions posed in the medical examination. The Organization points out''
 that even during the investigation, Claimant had difficulty understanding
 what was transpiring ih.the proceedings. The Organization argues, by

 implication, that Claimant was not responsible for the answers on the forms because he did not write all the answers himself. Finally, the Organization contends that Claimant's answers were, essentially, irrelevant to the process of deciding to hire him because the medical examination should have detected any medical difficulties. The Organization asserts that the Carrier has failed to meet its burden of proof and that the discipline

 imposed is excessive.

 After review of the,entire record, the $oard finds that the dismissal


 of Claimant was for just cause.

 The Carrier, has sustained 'its burden of proving that there is substantive'credible pvidence·,in the reqotd',,·that Claimant 'falsified his employment application and the answers to questions posed to him by the Carrier's medical staff. While t6'e Board sympathizes'with Claimant's inability to

 read'well, the record indicates that.Claimant knew what the questions were - . i.
 I c
 but, nonetheless, signed the application and answers,. The information as to
 ., r. , .
 prev,ious.'injury.is.rleqrly false; Claimant admits the truth.and the

 documents. ip.',the rec'oxdspeak for;'ctheinselves ", . , ~~ ,;.', ; ~i .

 The Organizatiop's assertion that Claimant is not responsible for the Carr'ier's reliance on!his false statements and that'the'Carrier should have

 detected Claimant's injuries is without foundation. The Carrier is under no -

 oblieation to learn of an individual's medical state solelv by examination. .

 In many instances, the most import,, Ant part of a medicAl 6xami,nation is the
 oral interview between doctor and patient. -

 The Carrier is well within its rights to establish and enforce

 reasonable medical standards. The,.naCUre of railroad transportation demands .
 that the Carrier take careful precautions as to the,.capacity of its `.v,_
 employees to perform their duties in order 'to ensure the safety of other ' -'

 employees and the public at large. The employment application authorizes , ! ,
 dismissal as a penalty'for falsification by its own terms.' And the ,
falsification of such important information cuts to the very heart of the'
 trust which underlies the employment relationship. Therefore, dismissal is
 warranted and-reasonable under the circumstances. The Carrier has acted
 without arbitrariness,

 AWARD
Claim denied.

 Date.:~G ,/Y~a:

 caprice or discrimination.

 J Lt

 MeutralRmber
 ,i

 ,Carrier Member

 Organization Member

 -W S.