The record indicates that Mr. McCain testified that- he did not instruct the Claimant to fill out an accident report on July 6, since he indicated that he was going to be on vacation and there may not have been a need for such report. Mr. McCain's testimony is particularly relevant. He stated:

Under the circumstances and the other information I received from Mr. Dismuke at that time, I felt that there was - I agreed with him this was a temporary problem, and after he was off for a few days on vacation, that he would be ready to come back to work. And I did agree, whether it be right or wrong, I did agree with Mr. Dismuke at that time that under the circumstances, there would be no need to fill out any kind of an accident report after the information that I received from him.

The record also indicates that when Mr. Dismuke, the Claimant, was hired, it was indicated that he needed glasses. There was testimony to the effect that he did not wear glasses at the time that he stumbled over the ballast and incurred the injury.

As the Board views the record of this matter, it is apparent that the Claimant here believed that he might not have to file an injury report. He decided to wait rather than file such a report or even talk to his foreman when the accident occurred. This was done allegedly because he felt that if he reported the incident, he would be taken out of service. The Board cannot credit this point of view. Claimant in this matter was not a neophyte. Furthermore, his record indicates that he had injuries in the past and filled out accident reports and was well aware of the rules.

5~q ~-1 I

4 He should have known that the incident should be reported to his foreman immediately, and the accident report filled out shortly thereafter. In this instance, he did not conform to the company's rules. Therefore, Carrier was correct in its decision that he had violated the rules. In addition, he was at least partly culpable for the incident, since he was not wearing glasses at the time that he tripped. The mitigating circumstance in this matter was the action of his supervisor. It is clear that Mr. McCain indicated to the Claimant that it was alright not to file the accident report on July 6. He attempted to report the matter initially on July 5, when he felt that he had been injured and he had waited the weekend and had not recovered. However, it was due to the supervisor's

recommendation that he desisted from following through in filing the accident report. From this series of circumstances, the Board concludes that Claimant was at least partly culpable for the injury and also failed in not reporting the accident immediately to his foreman. However, the late preparation of the injury report cannot be attributed to him. Therefore, he should have been found guilty only for his alleged responsibility for incurring the injury and failing to discuss it with his foreman in a timely fashion. In view of all these circumstances, the Board believes that dismissal in this instance was unwarranted and unduly harsh. It is more appropriate, as the Board sees it, for this employee to be reinstated to his former position with all rights unimpaired, but without compensation for time lost as penalty for his culpability in the entire matter and for his not following the Company's well-established rules.

wlk~