Martin H. Malin, Chairman & Neutral Member

T. W. Kreke, Employee Member

B. W. Hanquist, Carrier Member

Hearing Date: January 7, 2008

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

Claim on behalf of Mr. J. Salinas, ID# 0221781, so that charge letter dated August 11, 2006, to be removed from all company records and for the Union Pacific Railroad Company to compensate him for any loss of time, all vacation rights, including his seniority rights unimpaired and for all personal expenses to be reimbursed back to him while driving from his home to Susan Yard, San Antonio, Texas, and back home, while attending an investigation on account the Union Pacific Railroad Company has disciplined the employee for allegedly being charged for possible violation of Rule 1.6(4) Dishonest, Rule 1.2.5 Reporting and Rule 1.13 reporting and Complying with Instructions, where it was alleged that on June 15, 2006, he was alleging an injury due to a derailment on June 28, 2004. We are requesting that the charges be dropped because the carrier has failed to meet the burden of proof at the investigation held on July 26, 2006, in San Antonio, Texas.

FINDINGS:

Public Law Board No. 6402 upon the whole record and all of the evidence, fnds and holds that Employee and Carrier are employee and carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; and, that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein; and, that the parties to the dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon and did participate therein.

On June 20, 2006, Claimant was notified to report for a formal investigation on July 13, 2006, concerning his alleged late reporting of an injury and falsification of an injury report on June 15, 2006. The hearing was postponed to and held on July 26, 2006. On August 11, 2006, Claimant was advised that he had been found guilty of the charges and had been dismissed from service.

r19

The record reflects that a derailment occurred on June 28, 2004, resulting in the breach of a car carrying chlorine and the release of a substantial amount of chlorine. Claimant was one of many employees who worked on repairs following the derailment.

By letter dated March 13, 2006, addressed to an employee with Carrier's Claims Department, an attorney advised Carrier that he was representing Claimant "for personal injuries sustained by him on or about June 28, 2004." On June 14, 2006, the Claims Department advised the Director Track Maintenance of the letter. On June 15, 2006, the DTM questioned Claimant about his alleged injuries and Claimant completed a Report of Personal Injury or Occupational Illness reporting dizziness and coughing resulting exposure to chlorine at the derailment site on June 28, 2004.

The Organization contends that Carrier violated Rule 21(a)(1) by not holding the investigation within thirty days of Carrier's receipt of the March 13, 2006, letter. We do not agree. Rule 21 required that the hearing be held within thirty days of Carrier's first knowledge of the occurrence. First knowledge is the date that the relevant Carrier officer with authority over the Claimant became aware of the occurrence. Although Carrier's Claims Department had knowledge of the occurrence in March 2006, the DTM, the relevant Carrier officer with authority over the Claimant, did not acquire such knowledge until June 14, 2006. The investigation was scheduled for July 13, 2006, i.e. within thirty days of June 14, 2006. Although the investigation was postponed to July 26, 2006, outside the thirty day period, that postponement came at the request of the Organization. Accordingly, we are unable to find a violation of Rule 21's time limits.

The charges against Claimant essentially were that he failed to report an alleged personal injury in a timely manner and that he falsified his report of and claim of personal injury. We find that Carrier proved these charges by substantial evidence.

Rule 1.2.5 requires that employees report all cases of on-duty personal injuries to management immediately. Claimant testified that he first experienced dizziness while working at the derailment site. He could not locate his Manager Track Maintenance, so he reported it to one of the hazardous materials workers who told him to get away from the site and sit down. Claimant did so and after thirty to forty minutes the symptoms resolved themselves and he returned to work. Claimant testified that he began experiencing the dizziness and coughing in January 2005. In 2006, he saw a doctor in Mexico and by March 2006 he had retained a lawyer to represent him in his claim against Carrier. At the very latest, Claimant was required to report his personal injury to management in March 2006. He failed to do so. Indeed, he did not report his personal injury until questioned about it by the DTM. Carrier proved the violation of Rule 1.2.5 by substantial evidence.

Carrier also proved that Claimant falsified his personal injury report. Claimant claimed to have experienced dizziness and coughing beginning in January 2005 as a result of exposure to chlorine released in the derailment. The Senior Toxicologist who led the response to the chlorine release testified that exposure to low levels of chlorine can result in irritation but that the effects

2

are transient and clear up upon withdrawal from the exposure. In other words, Claimant's claim of dizziness and coughing beginning months after the derailment and continuing for more that a year is inconsistent with exposure to low levels of chlorine. Rather, Claimant's initial experience with dizziness while working at the site which resolved itself when he stayed away from the site for 30-40 minutes was consistent with the typical reaction to chlorine exposure as testified to by the Senior Toxicologist. According to the Senior Toxicologist, whose testimony was unrefined, long term effects of chlorine only result from severe reactions which occur at exposure to higher levels of concentration and result in damage to the lungs that typically requires admission to a hospital intensive care unit. Claimant did not experience the type of severe exposure and reaction that would produce long term effects.

The Organization argues that Carrier failed to prove Claimant's dishonest intent. The Organization urges that Claimant may have been the victim of poor medical advice or poor legal advice but did not act dishonestly. The record, however, fails to support the Organization's position. As Claimant testified, he made a conscious decision to retain counsel and pursue a personal injury claim against Carrier. We conclude that Carrier proved the charges by substantial evidence.

The Agreement does not require Carrier to maintain employees who display such dishonesty in its employ. The penalty of dismissal was not arbitrary, capricious or excessive.

AWARD

Claim denied.

Martin H. Malin, Chairman

i°-_9. 1f y · I V vWV 5'i.LiA_rf .~ / u~r v

B. W. Hanquist T. W. Kreke
Carrier Member Employee Member

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, February 29, 2008