BEFORE
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 6054
IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER )
CORPORATION (AMTRAK) ) AWARD NO. 9
CASE NO. 9
AND )
THE BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE )
OF WAY EMPLOYEES )
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
(1) The dismissal of Trackman Ezequiel Alvarez for his
alleged failure to properly report an injury and falsification
thereof was without just and sufficient cause and based on
unproven charges.
(2) Trackman Ezequiel Alvarez shall now be reinstated to
service with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and
compensated for all wage loss suffered. He shall also have
his record cleared of this incident.
FINDINGS
This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties herein are the
Carrier and the Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this
Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated August 5, 1977; and has jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter.
Grievant was employed by the Carrier as a Trackman, and had three years of service at the time
giving rise to this claim. On November 7, 2003, he told his Foreman that he had been injured
while on duty on the previous day, November 6, 2003. On November 10, 2003, when asked by
the Superintendent and a Manager to provide details of his alleged injury, he stated that he had
become injured on October 23, 2003 - not November 6, 2003, as he originally alleged.
Alvarez Discharge Page 2
PLb eosy
~4wc1
His Foreman also stated that the Grievant originally told him that he was not sure when, or how,
he injured his wrist, but that it may have occurred on duty. The Foreman advised him to be
careful about filing a false report of an on-duty injury, but the Grievant filed the report
nonetheless.
The Union raised several arguments on the Grievant's behalf, during both the Hearing on the
property and the Arbitration Hearing. However, those arguments do not overwhelm the clear
testimony of the three Carrier witnesses, and the Hearing Officers determination of credibility.
There is sufficient evidence that the grievant was guilty of dishonestly claiming an on-duty
injury.
Although the Union urged consideration based upon the Grievant's length of service, we do not
believe that three years' of service would mitigate a proven charge of dishonesty. We will deny
the claim.
AWARD
The claim is denied.
UJ. R. Jo son
Arbitrator
Donald D. artholomay~ Ri and Sandler
Employee Member Carrier Member
Dated:
e1."