PARTIES) UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
 TO )
 DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. The dismissal assessed Laborer J. W. Orefice for allegedly
 reporting a personal injury on April 9, 1990 which was stated
 to have occurred March 28, 1990 was arbitrary, capricious and
 unwarranted.

 2. Provided the sustaining of charges in this regard was appro
 priate, which it was not, the amount of discipline assessed is
 obviously excessive.

 3. The Carrier failed to handle this matter in a procedurally correct fashion as evidence contained in the hearing transcript clearly shows.

 4. In light of C1), (2), and (3) above, the Claimant's record
 shall be cleared of the discipline referred to in Part (1), as
 well as any mention of the alleged incident and he shall be com
 pensated for any and all time lost.

 FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 4338 findsthat_ the-parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In this dispute the claimant was notified to attend an investigation on May 4, 1990 in Portland, Oregon. The claimant was charged with allegedly sustaining a personal injury on March 28, 1990 and with failure to report such alleged injury in a prompt manner in possible violation of Rules E and 4004 of Form 7908 Safety, Radio and General Rules for All Employees.

 The claimant was removed from service pending the outcome of the investigation. Pursuant to the hearing the claimant wasfound guilty and was dismissed from the service of the.Carrier.

 The Union objected to the claimant being removed from service. The Union also objected that the charge was not precise. The claimant was charged with a violation of Rules E and 4004. These rules apply to accidents and personal injuries and provide that such must be reported by the first means of communication. Rule 4004 reads in part:

                                          Award No. 48 Page 2


      "All cases of personal injury, while on duty, or on company property must be promptly reported to proper authority

      on prescribed form. _ _ _ _ __,_


Track Supervisor S. R. Adams testified the claimant worked and reported to his Gqng 9013. He stated that on March 28 he did not have any personal. injuries reported to him and the claimant specifically did not report any injury. He testified the first he knew of the injury was on April 9. Mr. Adams also stated that Mr. Maes did not-tell him the claimant would not report to work on April 5.

 Track Supervisor E. R. Smith testified he was on vacation on March 28 and returned from his vacation and the firstshift he worked was on April 9, 1990. He stated the claimant reported to work approximately one hour late on that date.

 Supervisor Smith testified he asked the claimant why he was late to work, and the claimant replied he wasn't coming to work, he was there to file an accident report. Mr. Smith testified he asked the claimant when the accident occurred, and the claimant stated it occurred on March 28. He testified he asked the claimant how come he did not fill out the accident report when the injury- occurred, and the claimant gave no answer.

 Supervisor Smith testified he then asked the claimant to go see the company doctor since he was filling out an accidentreport, and the claimant stated he had already seen a doctor and he did not have to go see a doctor. He testified the claimant told him he did not have any right to tell him what to do.

 Mr. Smith also testified that the claimant finished filling out the accident report, and he asked the claimant to stay while he could get a witness to his signature, but the claimant left without getting a witness.

 Supervisor Smith testified the claimant filled out the accident report on April 9, 1990. Mr. Smith agreed that the claimant had a doctor's slip from his doctor on April 9. Mr. Smith testified the claimant was out of service account of injury during the period he was being withheld from service.

 The claimant testified that he realized on March 29 he had hurt
 himself, but did back up and state he knew he was hurt on March
 28 while riding from the gang in Wyeth. The claimant stated
 that on March 28 on the way home from work he rode with Mr. Maes,_
 a co-worker, and his back hurt so. bad, he was in the fetal -
 position,
                                  pig- ~33F~

· Award No. 48
 Page 3
 The claimant testified maybe he should have filled out the acci
 dent report on March 29 but he just assumed it was an ache he
 would get over, and he just never did. The claimant admitted
 he was going to see a doctor on April 5, yet he did not report
 the injury until April 9.
 The claimant also testified that on April 4--he realized his back
 wasn't getting any betterbut was getting worse. At that time he
 still had an opportunity to report the injury but failed to do
 so.
 The claimant knew, or certainly should have known, he had an
 obligation to report the injury at the time it occurred. Under
 these conditions there is no justification to set the decision
 of the Carrier aside.
 AWARD: Claim denied
 Preston .'Moore, Chairman
 e-s~

                                    (', - 2

                                  Union Member


f~ ~

Carrier Member