PARTIES TO-:QI9PTJTE




                  NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY


    STATEMENT OF CLAM


      'Section Laborer, Donald W. Rawling, P. 0. Box 107, Montvale, Va.

      24122, was assessed a 30 day actual suspension for alleged _

      dishonesty by making false statements about an injury he sustained

      on April 17, 1985. Claim was filed by the Employes in accordance

      with Railway Labor Act and agreement provisions. ,Employes request

      30 day suspension be removed and pay for lost time with vacation

      and seniority rights unimpaired.


.. FINDINGS ' a '` ' .

        Claimant entered, the Carrier's service on August f0, 1974.


      _ By letter dated May 3, 1985, Claimant was notified to attend a formal


· investigation as to,-his alleged.making of false statements in connection ,

 ' witli'an injury he §uscaihed. The`;invesLigaaion was conducted on May-15, 1985'at which time the Carrier adduced evidenfie that Claimant had made false
 statements, On May.-29. 7.985, Cl4maat was suspended far 30 days. ,

      The issue to be resolved in this dispute is whether Claimant was

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

 remedy be.

 PL IS u a · 3530 AwV Mb · 13

 On October 9,.1984, Claimant injured his knee~and filed a form CT-37
 (accident report£ngvfbrm). He had~surgery.in NovembeF,198G and returned to,~.
 work in April 1985 with direction from his doctor that he,work only on level
 ground. On April 17, 1985, > while cleaning switches at Kinney.Yard-the most
 level ground available--Claimant allegedly reinjured the same knee.
 Claimant reported the accident at three different times but in so doing gave
 three different and conflicting explanations of how the accident occuried. ·
 Based on this conflict,' Claimant: was charged with making false~statemerits. ·V.

 The position of I the organization is that Claimant was suspended without just cause because at all times, his explanation of tits cause of his injury has been the same, thereby proving that he did not falsify his report of the accident. The organization maintains chat Claimant's knee, which had been injured and on which he had recently been operated, simply gave way, Therefore, the Organization contends, the Carrier never sustained its burden of proof.

 The position of the Carrier is that Claimant was justly suspended because the evidence clearly shows that he made false statements as to the cause of his injury; * 'The Carrier, cites the three 'conflicting explanations given by Claimant as to the cause of the accident as proof that he falsified his explanation of the~cause. Central to the Carrier's position is that Claimant's third explanation ("knee gave way") followed his being told by a
 1:1La NO'3S Awe No. q

 Carrier officer that his second explanation ("stepped half on and half off a tie") was a violation of the Carrier's safety rules. This alone, the Carrier implies, 'show's,,fabrication,'_!,Fi.nally,, the Carrier contends that the punishment of suspension is reasonable, indeed generous, under the circumstances because the iaakIng of false statements is a dismissible offense.

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

 suspended, £or, just·,,eause .under the.vAgreement.

 The Carrier has established by substantive credible evidence in the record that Claimant iuade a false statement, regarding the injury he . sustained. 1 7t 'is not necessary to .'show which of -the statements was false or that Claimaxit was not injured; chat is not the issue. The question is whether Claimant made~a false statement, With three conflicting and ' irreconcilable explanations of the. accident; 'the only 'conclusion that the examiner could have made was that at least one of them was false. It is significant that the explanation that.the knee gave. way was the third explanation offered by Claimant as the basis for the' injury.' After being told that his second explanation was a violation of ,the safety rules, the . circumstances suggest strong motivation for fabricatinp; an alternative'

                                      ,

explanation. '


Truthfulness in I the employment relationship is essential. It is perhaps most significant in the area of accident and injury reporting because provision of a safe work environment is one of the primary obligations of an employer. Claimant's violation, of that principle is a serious
 FL.B NO- 953b AwD No. g3

 offense and the discipline of suspension is not.arbitrary, capricious or

 discriminatory.

 &WAR])
Claim denied.

ae

trier a her