Claimant was employed by the carrier as a trackman for nearly 15 years. On April 11, 1986 he notified the Chief Clerk that he was hospitalized and in traction, but that he did not know the origin of his injury. On April 13, 1986, Claimant telephoned his Roadmaster at home, and advised him that he had injured himself while on-duty on April 4, 1986. Claimant was charged with the possible violation of several rules, and an investigation was held in May 21, 1986, to determine the facts and place responsibility, if any, for violation of said rules. Claimant was notified on June 6, 1986, that he had been found guilty, and that his record would be assessed thirty (30) demerits.
The organization raised several procedural objections at the investigation. First, the Organization asserted that the Notice of investigation was inadequate, and that it was unable to adequately prepare its defense. The Notice specified the matter which was to be the subject of the investigation, the time and date it allegedly occurred, and cited the Rules which covered the situation. The Board finds that the Notice was adequate. PLB N0. 4021
Finally, the Organization objected to several written statements from Carrier employees who were not available as witnessed at the investigation. The statements were not particularly important to the case, because they merely asserted that Claimant did not tell them that he was injured; but they will be rejected by the Board nonetheless. The Organization pointed out Carrier's right and obligation to arrange for employees to appear and give testimony at the investigation, but Carrier made no attempt to do so. Such statements will not be considered by the Board.
With respect to the merits of the case, Claimant was charged with the falsification of an injury, as well as the violation of certain Carrier rules. There is no evidence in the record that Claimmant falsified the injury, and the assessment of thirty demerits reflects that Claimant was not found guilty of that charge by the hearing officer. Such an offense would warrant discharge. The other rules deal with the prompt reporting of all personal injuries, and the issue,here is whether Claimant violated those rules.
The record discloses that the alleged injury occurred on April 4, 1986, but was not reported by the Claimant until April 11 and 13, 1986. Claimant offers several reasons for his failure to report the injury earlier. The reasons include the fact that the Roadmaster was on vacation, that there were no supervisors on duty at the time the injury occurred, and that he first believed that it was merely an aggravation of a prior injury, which would clear up with a few days rest.
It is clear from the record that Claimant knew he had hurt his back on April 4, 1986, and that he communicated that fact to others. It is also clear that he could have reported the alleged injury sooner, but failed to do so. It is not important whether the pain was the result of a "new" injury or an aggravation of a previous injury. The Rules require employees to report promptly, and the rules are appropriate. The Board finds that Claimant did violate the Rules.
In view of the Claimant's failure to report his injury within a reasonable time, the Board finds that the discipline assessed was appropriate.