1. The Carrier violated the Agreement on August 17, 1001, when It

dismissed Mr. C. A. Vigil from service for allegedly violating

Maintenance of Way Operating Rule 1.1.5, 1.2.6, 1.6, and 1.13, for a

late report of an injury on June 27, 2001.

2. As a consequence of the Carrises violation referred to above Mr.

Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the pardon herein an carrier and employee within the meaning of the RaVway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board Is duly constituted by Apreernsnt, has jurisdiction of the Parries and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were ylvsn due notice of the hearing thereon.

Claimant, on June 29, 2001, filed an Injury report contending he originally suffered an Injury sometime In mid-May andlor June 6, 2001.

On June 11, 2001, Claimant had a conference with a Roadmaster, the Manager of Safety and the Division Engineer regarding his Injury clams At that conference, when only the Roadmaster was present, Claimant allted both the mid-May and June 6 Injuries

were work-related, but when the Division Engineer and the Manager of Safety joined in, Claimant stated It was not work related; that perhaps it occurred while he was installing satellite dishes for TV (something he was doing on his off days). Regarding the mid-May Incident, only one other employee was aware of it (according to Claknant) and he was employee Barber, his Foreman at the time. At that time, Claimant alleged he fall off the back of the truck. A conversation between the Roadmaster and the Foreman revealed he knew nothing of the Incident.

Claimant professed he was somewhat intimidated by various Supervisors, and that Is why he was reluctant to report the Injuries when they occurred. This despite the fact that Claimant attended a number of training classes in 1998 thru November, 1999, relating to safety rules, back plus and health on track. Surely during those sessions, it was stressed the necessity of reporting Injuries when they occur. In fact, the Carrier has put In place the soft tissue type report with a 72 hour window which would permit an injury flNng If at first the Individual thought ft was nothing otter than an ache or pain that would dissipate with aspirin and/or a hot tub soak.

Clakftant did know about the 72 hour window for soft tissue type Injuries, thus he knew there was lkr*ed time to file an Injury report, yet he let the tine lapse.

In fact, Claimant has not furnished one solid reason for filing a labs Injury report that could possibly mitigate the charges assessed. The Carrier did furnish substantial evidence of Ctalmant's culpablilly for the charges assessed. The discipline stands.

AWARO