Award No.
g 9
Case No. 189
(Brotherhood of Malntenenee of Way Employee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Budlnpton Northern Santa Fe Railroad (Former
(ATSF Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CWN
s
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement on July =7, 9001. when It
dismissed Mr. C. D. Wheebr hoot service for a&pedly viohtlnp
Maintenance of Way OperaOnS Rules 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.8,
1.8, and 1.13, by failing to timely report a personal bduq.
2. As a consqueruw of the Carrier's violation refereed to above 91r.
Wlwebr shall be refuted to sere" the dledplrte shell b removed
ltom his paraonal record and he shall be oompensabd for a0 wages
104, 1! aft, In atoordanos with the AOreantent
Upon the whole record and ate the evidence, the Board finds that tin parties
herein an carrier
and
_ employee iatthln
1M
meaning of the Railway Labor Art, as
emended. Further. the Board Is duly ooneftd by AyreenteM, hm Orhdicdwr of the
Parlors
and at the wb*at matter, and the Par&& to file dbpute were given due rro'fea of
the hearing tlteeson.
Clakrrrrf, on SePaamber 19, 3000. reported an Injury he sustained on September
7, 2M. -
On Otber 9, 2090, Carrier wrole Claimant advising he was betnp wllhheld from
suvioa pending the
OuttWnll
of an investigation scheduled October 18, 2000, to dwdop
his reaponWblllW. i( any, In oonnsction with the lab reporting of the Injury.
Pea
00-
SSSO
Page 1 Award No.
~
Claimant contends that he slipped on some o8 In the back of the truck on
September 7, 2000, and an a rssutt sustained an Injury he reported an September 19,
2000. He stated the lots ARM was due to the fact that the Injury did not Immadlately
cause him to think it was serious so he did not report it, yet he claimed he was In pain
and worked without telling anyone until he requested to file an Injury report
A Carrier witness who was the truck driver responsible for the truck, testified that
on September 6,1000, he had the truck steam cleaned as there was hydraulic oil on the
truck bed from a broken hydraulic lire on the boom. Thoretoh, an September 7, the
truck was clean and squared away.
Furthermore, no one Chknwfl worked with from September 7 to September 19
malkid CIaknent complaining of hur*rp or sufisrktg any pain, nor did anyone nodes any
dflerencs In his work pastsrra.
Clalmanrs version of how and when the Injury occurred Is not in harmony with the
witnesses who testified at the Investigation.
Claimant may wsl have sustaktsd an injury, but the when and how SO remains
unknown, and the tilling and notification thereof was unduly delayed and not adequately
jusensd.
The discipline will not be disturbed. The Carrier furnished substantial evidence of
Claimant's culpability for the Charges assessed.
AWAR
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute Identified above, hereby orders that
ZIp-t
l7e
·aW·w
awL·o'fkje4Oa
*w
WW041
..qLuaw
joan'npLpM ,s
iI:la
i1t4n*NV ueuul§V'"olHI IJaqaM
'9Pew sq
IOU
(*)tuautel:) wg c4 olqeroAsl pia*e uc
M
'ON OWa
bg°" wr os85
-co e'ld