1. The Carrier violated the Agreement on March 3, 2002, when it issued

the Claimant, Air, B. L Ferris, a 30-day suspension, for allegedly

violating Rules 1.2.5, 1.2.7, and 1.6; for allegedly failing to properly

report a personal Injury.

2. As a consequence of the violation referred to In part (1), the Carrier

"...your responsibility if any, in connection with your possible violation of Rules 1.2.5, 1.2.7, and 1.6 of the Maintenance of Way Operating Rules, In effect. January 31, 1999, as supplemented or smsnded and Rules 8-1.2.6 and 8-1.4.1 of the Maintenance of Way Safety Rules, in effect, January 31, 1999, as suppkrmnted or amended, concerning your alleged failure to immediately report an alleged personal injury to yourself. while working as a relief Backhoe operator, at Amarillo on the Kansas Division, on January

3, 2002."

The Investigation was hell as scheduled and on Nay 28, 2002, Claimant was advised that he was being assessed an actual 30 day suspension for the reasons set forth in the notice of Investigation. However, as of May 28, 2002, Claimant was still on furlough. The assessment of an actual 30 day suspension would not comments until M would be recalled from furlough.

Claimant was furloughed on January 4, 2002, but was recalled on January 6, 2002, to work on a derailment At first he accepted the cad, then 18 minutes or so later he called the Roadmaster Indicating he could not make It, that M had to go to the hospital to got a shot

Following is the statement of the Roadmaster who was a Carrier witness at the Investigation relating his contact with Claknant:

"Concerning B. L. Farris

On 1-0-02 at 06101 called B. Farris to come to work for a deralinrnt and he said OK. 16 minutes later he cased back and sail he really wanted to but he had to 9o to the hospital to pet a shot for back pain. I asked him what happened and he replied that it was something oil and M would pot back to me later.

On Monday he left the prescription paper and an appointment slip for an MRl at my office. I was not there at the time.

On Tuesday the 8'° B. Farris left the doctors report of the MRI at my office while I was at the derailment, which is attached and drat he will take shots In the back for 6 weeks to help his back Hs is furloughed at this time.

I called him at home and asked him what happened to his back and he toll me he did not know. He stated to me that M had had problems for the past year with pain in his back off and on. I asked him if he had ever felt a sudden pain or a pop at work and he said No. Hs did say drat all he was worried about was his Insurance since he was iayed off and I told him that he had Insurance for he and his farnity for 4 months after he was layed off and he said that was all he needed and he did not want to report an Injury to the company."

The MRI report Claimant left did Indicate a "substantial disc rupture^. A clinical diagnostic conclusion was that It 'demonstrates loss of disc signal at 5-1 compatible with degenerative disc disease."

On April 19, 2002, Claimant appeared at the Roadmasters aice, requesting that he file an injury report, and on that report Claimant stated he hurt his beck on January 3, 2002, when he was raising or lowering the ramps on the trailer used to haul the backhoe. This Is the first tire Claimant related his back problem was job related. In at least three if not four conversations prior to April 19 with the Roadmasber, Claimant did not claim the back condition was job related. However, on January 9, 2002, Claimant was examined by a Dr. Yeggeberg who stated in the section of the report dated January 9, 2002, entitled "PAST HISTORY" that Claimant stated he was working up around a ramp area.

The Roadmastsr did file a Supervisor's Report for Employees Injuries, copy of which was given to the Organisation, but when Claimant's Representative requested K be entered as an exhibit, it was denied by stating R was improper for the Organization to enter any documents. The presiding officer did state Claimant could enter the document H he wanted, but not his spokesman. To this the Board does not agree. Claimant and his Representative wen presenting their defense and wished to include a certain document that they already were In possession of to back their defense. It is not to say each and every request for documents to be attached to an Investigation has m be honored, but it must be given consideration, and if denied, it must be for a good and sufficient reason. In this Instance, they had a copy of the report, there was much teatknony regarding what was in the report, but It was never attached as an exhIbM. Clalmenes Representative speaks for and on behalf of the Claimant. B In doubt about any such document, It is fetter to err in favor of Claimant and/or his spokesman. This

AWARD