(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (Former (ATSF Railway Company) STATEMENT OF CLAIM:








shall immediately remove any mention of this incident from the
Claimant's personal record and make him whole for any wages lost
account of this alleged violation.
FINDINGS

Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board is duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.

On June 27, 2003, the Carrier advised Claimant an Investigation was being scheduled to determine his alleged threatening remark concerning a possible personal injury and failure to promptly report an injury that occurred June 23, 2003.

Following the Investigation, Claimant was timely advised that Carrier believed It had furnished sufficient evidence to support one charge and for that one charge Claimant was assigned a level S record suspension of 60 days with a three years

Page 2 Award No.


probation period.
The one charge dropped by the Carrier was that of making a threatening remark to another employee of the Carrier.
Accordingly, the only charge before this Board that Carrier believes it had furnished sufficient evidence of culpability was the alleged late reporting of an injury that was reported to have occurred on June 23, 2003.
For the record, it is noted the Injury report was flied on June 25, 2003, relating to an incident that occurred at about 9:00 AM on June 23, 2003.
Carrier's policy titled "Employee Performance Accountability" sets forth In pertinent part the following:

      "d. Muscular-skeletal injuries are not subject to late reporting

          investigation, as long as they are reported within 72 hours of the

          probably triggering event and medical attention verifies that the

          condition is most likely linked to the event specified. Employees

          must notify their supervisors before seeking medical attention for

          such injuries ...."

On June 26, 2003, Claimant notified his Supervisor of his need for medical services. Thus, it is evident Claimant was in full compliance with the aforequoted excerpt But, this record is not that easy to adjudicate. Claimant, in a letter dated June 30, 2003, he cc-signed with his Representative directed to the Division Engineer, requested the Injury report be withdrawn and in lieu a new injury report be filed reflecting the injury was a result, "of repetitious work."

This jointly signed letter was never responded to or even remarked upon after it was written prior to the Investigation after it was included In the Investigation by Claimant's Representative, nor even during the on-properly handling after the grievance was filed wherein the co-signed request was again referred to.

Page 3 Award No.

                                              Case NO. 249


TM jointly signed teit,r sirnpNy requested the Carrier to change the cause of ttp injury. It did not change anything ebe. thus Cfaknsnt on June 26, 2001, filed an injury report reporting to an actbn that occurred on June 23, 2003, wall within the 72 hour window for filing such ciaitnfi.


The Carrier's evidence is the testinony of others that CVimant compialned of a son right srrn prior to June 23. 2003. He rnay have been complaining of a sore arm but tilers wee *ISO bsdmony that *Own haw complained of aches and pains that follow strenuous work as encountered by CtatmanL That typo of tostbnony is not speck, and to clearly prow the charges the Carrier would bay* to furnish apsciRcs of an incident in order to hold that Claimant was brte in reporting an injury that did occur prior to June 2:, 2003. This they Mess not done.

The elakn Is sustained. 1111 traces of this matter are to be erased from Claimant's record. If Clairnarrt has lost any earnings because of this Incident other than tines lost because of the Medical Deparbrtent he is to be paid as provided in the Agrsertront


                        AWARD


      Claim sustakrsd in accordance with the Findkps.


                        ORDgR

This Board. ~ consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an sward favorable to the Claknsnt(sj be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the award eilecfe on or bafora 30 days following the date the award Is adopted.


              Robert L Nicks, Chakman a Narltrsi lketnber


Rick B. Wahrti, Labor meniper William L Yeck, Carne r
Oated; 7 - I-C)q