BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 5027
Case No.
1
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (FORMER MISSOURI-KANSAS
TEXAS RAILROAD)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
1. Carrier violated Article 23 of the Agreement
when Laborer No.
1
N. W. Roberson was dismissed
from service on June 21, 1989.
2. Claim in behalf of Laborer No. 1 Roberson that
his record be cleared of this matter and paid for
all time lost and all rights due him be restored.
FINDINGS:
Claimant N. W. Roberson was employed by the Carrier as a
laborer.
On June 6, 1989, the carrier notified the Claimant to appear
for a formal investigation in connection with the following
charge:;that . . you allegedly failed to properly and
pomptly report an alleged personal injury that
allegedly occurred on May 3, 1989, at 3:30 p.m. at
MP 278,
Clinton Branch
.
The hearing took place on June 15, 1989. On June 21, 1989,
the Carrier notified the Claimant that he had been found guilty
of the charges in that he violated General Rule E of the Safety,
Radio and General Rules for all Employees effective April 27,
1986, on the Union Pacific Railroad and effective October 26,
1986, on the former MKT Railroad- As a result of the finding,
the Claimant was assessed discipline of dismissal effective June
21, 1989.
The Organization thereafter filed a claim on the claimant's
behalf, challenging his dismissal. The Carrier subsequently
denied the Claim. The parties being unable to resolve the
issues, this matter came before this Board.
This Board has reviewed the procedural arguments raised by
the organization and we find them to be without merit.
With respect to the substantive case against the claimant,
this Hoard has thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and we
find that the Claimant failed to properly and promptly report an
alleged personal injury in violation of the rules. The record
reveals that the claimant allegedly incurred a personal injury on
the job on May 3, 1989. The rules require that all accidents or
personal injuries must be reported by the first means of communication. Also, a written report must follow promptly. The record
reveals that the Claimant did not report his injury until June 5,
1989, more than one month~after the incident.
once this Hoard has determined that there is sufficient
evidence in the record to support the guilty finding, we next
turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board
will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we
find its action to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
In the case at hand, Claimant was properly found guilty of a
very serious offense. This Board recognizes that the claimant
has been with the Carrier for a number of years. However, this
is the type of offense which often leads to dismissal, even for
employees who have been with the Carrier for a long time. As was
stated by the Third Division in Award number 26663:
2
It
is
well-accepted, especially on this property, that
the failure to promptly report an injury as required
by
Rule
1
is grounds for dismissal. See Third Division
Awards
25162,
and 24014. As explained in those awards,
the purpose of the reporting requirement is that the
carrier is entitled to receive such reports promptly
since such incidents may involve liability on the part
of the Carrier. The reporting requirement also benefits the employee due to the obligation of the Carrier
to furnish medical care to an injured employee ....
Claimant did not meet his obligations under the rule
and we can find no reason to justify disturbing the
Carrier's action of dismissal.
The Third Division's reasoning is applicable here.
Therefore, the claim will be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
PETER . . YERS
Neutr Sember
s
Carrier
MPmh
r /oerganizatio ember
Dated
3