payment for all time lost, ine:uding tirne spend attending Investigation, and restoration of seniority; vacation and ail other 'e^-nef:rs following discipline of dismissal assessed following fornia1 Investigation conduced on November 2, 2000. F D;DIVGS:
The Board, upon considerarion ef -re entire r.-'cord and all of the evidence, finds that the parties are Carrier and Employee `hiu~i = :he meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted by A=-eem a nt dated July 9, 2001, this Board has jurisdiction over the dlsoute involved herein, and that ii a ~a-''.1~$'.~eC~ given due not:C-- of the hearirg iheld.
ClarMant rerouted rOC ~ury a:. :'~d :CCz:nan at I_ 1._ 1, pm on 'Friday, SeL7te;nber and COCII~^,LC:=d :115 3551Cr:roe;lr 3t 71= a,:: a:'.e =oi.omng :horning. :fit aporooiLnat°L;J 6:11 prn on CZLtentber 23, -~N~0, CCLa:man~ Called :0 -1': Jt: ~iC;<. .~CCOL:iIL:IT to the 'aCL'1.9L', CIaimav-- sa ;C I:e nni: ~,C,',n Our :ill.' ,^,C.'.': LCIL~ J~CL:CC V, a -C '-V-7! :l: ..._ .':05,:!; , 1;:i. wouL;: --mCabL I :e o:: rbr 3 C~_-:'.,
to work and resume regular duties on September 27, 2000. At 1:30 ai77 on September 25, 2000, Claimant submitted an injur;i r°por allezing he had received a personal injury at 5:00 am on September 23, 2000. According :o the 'lair^nant's report, he sustained this injury while adjusting the drawbar on a car. He says h., _elt a : ull in his g=oin area during this procedure. Claimant informed Superintendent Wilson r17at -':e car was a bulkhead flat. Claimant subsequently saw another doctor who diagnosed aim :s havina strained right zroin muscle. The doctor prescribed physical therapy and rest~Cted C:aimaS: :r,cm working.
By letter dated September =3, _'01j!), claimant w'35 directed to attend a formal investi1-ation at which he was char'=ed with (:_si ·~n_ an injury, (2 j ;ailing to properly report an injury, (3) failing to coiEPlV W1th instructions a':.''. i,=; -ak_r:g false and co=llctlng statements. Following the hearing, Claimant leas dismissed i-Gm :..: %i~e. By letter (fated Noveinoer 14_ 201)0, the Carrier notified Claimant he was round 31.:L1-; Of ail :;;pests of the charge, and was dismissed from service.
Upon our review of the reCGid, '·`:P, :1:.C ::!ere is substantial evidence t0 support the Carrier's charge `hat Claimant v:olared :.'7e Career's -tees :egarding the prompt reporting of personal injuries. Claimant acimo%vledged that, while he ;vas on a break during the shift in question, he ;old his brak:;';r:a tha:he may hale injur:d 1!~:sC.:. aihermor--, Claimant was C-lain as to -\actly how 1171$ I^i'.Lr'/ occurred, v,%en t0 :i7e .,..._... Gi ..°..;'n~'.IT:1',er;n,g what t,ipe 0l ca., `.Vas i1:VQIVed Neverhetess, Claimant dic not rePo7-. :;.: . -: until aT~er he had already gone to the hospital, two
Numerous arbitral panels have recognized the Carrier's right to require employees to report injuries as soon as it becomes apparent that an injur;/ has occurred. Such rules are so well entrenched in this industry that it is too late to question their legitimacy. This Board concurs with the Carrier's right to impose discipline upon zmploye's who fail to comply.
We also find :hat Claimant did sot comply with the instruction given to him by Assistant Superintendent Nasello, that he was to advise him immediately after his September 25, 2000, doctor's appointment The,.-cord shows Claimant did not do so until a day later. Because this was an FRA reporabie injury, Nasello had as interest in obtaining information about Claimant's condition on a timely basis.
We do not and there is sufficient eiidence in the record to support the Ca-ier's conclusionsue some discrepancies in the statements ma them to be intentionally misleading. While the Board makes no finding as to whether or not Claimant actually received an on-th--job inju7/, we 'rind the Carrier has :ailed to meet its burden of proving that he did not.
.;though we consider Claimana~s _z;ar n reporting the injury, and his delay in reporting the results of his later exaininadon, to ~e serious of-`eases, we do not a~_ree that permanent dismissal was wararted. We find no evidence of :nal;ce in Claimant's actions, but, rather, a poor exercise of JUd'r':en". .~tC_Or.:i:'_1;/ `~.'. :`.?;~ ..,.'CCL .._.. rla:rnart 'e r-.,,-r;:ej CC Se-/ICe '.~';C~ULi ,i):VL