AWARD NO. 30
Case No. 30
The claimant did not attend the hearing, although he received proper notice thereof. He was represented by the organization at the hearing. Thereafter, the Claimant was dismissed from service.
The Claimant, a Mechanic, was hired by the Carrier on October 17, 1989. As developed in the investigative hearing, the Claimant provided false information on his Application for Employment and his Pre-Employment Medical Questionnaire. The Carrier stated that it first became aware of this in October 1993, following receipt of a deposition by the Claimant in connection with an on-duty accident occurring on August 26, 1991.
In his employment application, the Claimant stated that he had been employed by the "Lucken Construction Company" between 1983 and 1989. As developed in the 1993 deposition, he did not work at this company. Rather, he stated that he had worked, prior to 1984, for the East Greenwich Dairy, a company which had not been listed at all on the Claimant's employment application form. Further, in the 1993 deposition, the Claimant stated he had sustained a back injury while working for that company and had not worked at all in the period from 1984 to 1988. The deposition also showed that in 1987 he settled a workers' compensation claim in reference to the back injury.
In the Pre-Employment Medical Questionnaire, the Claimant answered in the negative to whether he had incurred any "back
injury". He also answered in the negative as to whether he had "ever applied for or received workman's compensation or disability payment".
The organization contends that the Carrier is too late in questioning the employment documents four years after the Claimant commenced employment with the Carrier. The Organization argues that the Carrier had the opportunity to check the Claimant's employment history at the time of hiring, but it failed to do so.
The Carrier states that, had the Claimant been truthful in the pre-employment forms, he would not have been hired. The Claimant was apparently fully aware of this. In the 1993 deposition, the Claimant frankly admitted to his providing false information because of his fear that he would not have been employed.
Where an employer is aware of untruthful or misleading information as to an employee's work history And then fails t2 take prompt action, a resulting dismissal may be found to be inappropriate. This is because such employer could have acted earlier, but did not do so. Here, however, the Carrier convincingly states that its first knowledge came only when the deposition text was sent to the appropriate management representative in October 1993. It cannot be found that the Carrier simply "sat" on information by failing to take action. Thus, the Carrier may act as if it had received truthful information in the first place. While the Carrier could have checked the information initially provided by the Claimant, it is not required to do so and may assume that the applicant has provided truthful information .