Parties United Transportation Union
 to and
 Dispute Union Pacific Railroad Company
 Statement
 of Claim: Claim for Idaho Conductor R. K. Frank, for reinstatement to service,
 pay for all time lost, and all entries of UPGRADE Discipline Level 3
 removed from his personal record.
 Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of this case by reason of the parties
 Agreement establishing this Board therefor.
 The Claimant, on August 25, 1996, was working in charge of
 GEPDPC-22. The train stopped at Ontario, Oregon at MP 496.9. As the
 Claimant detrained the ground crumbled under his feet and gave way
 forcing him to run down the hill in order to maintain his balance. I-Es
 Engineer, J. D. Simmons, called out the window to the Claimant to see if
 he was okay. The Cant replied that he was but added "that maybe I
 was hurt, that I had pain." He then got back on the train without reporting
 the incident. When the Claimant arrived at Nampa, his final terminal, he
 indicated that both his knees had tightened up. The Claimant set out a
 motor before reporting the on duty injury, some 2 hours after the
 occurrence of the alleged injury. The Claimant then sought medical
 attention therefor.
 The Claimant Conductor was later notified that he was charged
 with:
 "concerning the following alleged incident while you were employed as
 Conductor on the GEOPOPC22 at approximately 2300 PM MT on 8125
 near MP 496.9, Ontario, OR, you aIlegedly failed to report your personal
 injury to the Dispatcher from the first means available as required by


No. 4998 -2- Award No. 112

 discipline status a Level 4 (30 day suspension and plus that he pass a Corrective Action Plan upon red and necessary annual operating rules or equivalent in order to return to work. .

 Case 112 is the split and companion case to our Case No. I I i that resulted in our Award No. 111. In Award No. 111, the Carrier committed an egregious procedural error because it failed to explain what was meant by the referred to term "incident of August 25, 1996" in order to make an appropriate charge(s) so that the Claimant would know just what he was bein"j charged with and prepare a defense therefor. There the Carrier in its Notice of Investigation identified only the date and place where the incident occurred but was most notably silent about the incident itself. Carrier then proceeded to assert five (5) conclusory phrases, apparently, based on its prelimin inquiry and an on ground review of the entire incident, August 25 whicfle4ted=when, where and how the alleged injury(s) occurred. The phrases were aimed at the Claimant's work conduct or work performance ostensibly to produce the charge aspect with no relevance being shown between such conclusory phrases used and the undefined incident of August 25, 1996. Our Board found the procedural error egregious and sustained the Award as Per Findings.

 The only actual incident of record that occurred at Ontario, Oregon, August 25, 1996 was, in essence, a road train stopped at an intermediate point to set off some cars and the Claimant Conductor detrained therefrom. An alleged injury or injuries and injury report resulted after his detraining.

"you failed to report your personal injury incident to the Dispatcher from the first means available as required by General Notice No. 12."

 The Board's procedural review of the entire record impels it to conclude that Carrier's abuse of process causes the Board to be unable to reach the merits because the Carrier, as in Award No. 111, again committed an egregious procedural error. The Carrier, in effect, chose to carve out the alleged failure to report the injury, as required by the Boise Service Unit's General Notice No. 12, aspect from the actual "incident occurring on August 25, 1996 while employed as a Conductor on Train GEPDPC22 at 14:45 PM," and to use it as a basis for a charge in its split
 Pt_B No. 4998 -3- Award No. 112

 or second Case No. 112. That's tag two bites from the same apple. However, the Carrier who has control and direction over the disciplinary process except to the extent of limitation created by the ms's Discipline

 Rules, chose to exclude the issue raised herein from Case No.

 thereby forfeited its right to raise it thereafter. The issue here raised was a fundamental and integral part of the involved incident of August 25, 1996.

 This claim will be sustained and the pay for time lost is limited to the time held out of service, attending the investigation and time actually served as discipline.

 Award: Claim sustained as per findings.

R. E. Carter, Employee Member

 D.~ nzaiwCam r member

;hut T. Van Wart, Chairman

and Neutral Member