AWARD NO. 24 CASE rxO. 25 PARTIES TO riE DISPUTE
Chicago and North Western Transportation Comparq S TATENT C) F CI.A IM t



(2) Claimant Pares be reinstated with all rights unimpaired and
 cowtpenaated for all tine lost because of the violation referred
 to within Part (1) of this claim."
 C?PINTDN C?F HDARD:
 Claimant Ismael A. Pares was hired as a Track Laborer on November 18,
 1974, but was furloughed after only about one month of employment. During this
 initial period of brief employment he was not given a physical examination. He
 u·is recalled in August, 1975, and Instructed by Carrier to report for a physical
 examination and back Z-ray. on August 21, 1975, an individual identifying him
 self as Ismael Perez reported to the Company physician, Dr. Mueller, who gave
 him a physical examination. The examines, on August 21, 1975, was a span 5110-3j4" tall who weighed 1$9 pounds. Be signed the report of examination in the following signature: "Israel Pre: A." At the conclusion of the physical examination, tJr. Mueller indicated that the examines was qualified to fill the position of "Track Laborer, pending results of back 1-rays." The individual was sent to Community C,reneral Hospital for back X-rays which, when processed: showed the back to be
 entirely normal I specifically, txe 1'.--5 transverse pros rseI in the lower beck

 showed no irregularity. Can the basis of the physical examination and X-rays

 of August ?l, 1975, CleiAntnt was found to be qualified for employment as a

 Track Laborer.
 Cla'anant vas again .furlough:rd on November 28, 1975 but he woks reca',Iad in March, 1976 and instructed to submit to another aed'_cal examination. in March 12, 1976, an individual identified as laaaal Perez was examined by Company Physician, Dr. Radd. The axaminee was found to be 5'9" tall and to weigh 1110 pounds. He signed the medical report of examination with the following signsturet "Isxael Pares." Under the "Remarks" section of the examination form, the Lbctor antereds "patient states he had T-rays in Stirling when he vas examined last year." ??r. Radd did not take another X-ray during the examination of March, 1976. Fbllovirg that examination, Claimant re-entered aerviea as a track man on March 15, 1976.
wait again injured on July 9, 1976. Y`ollowing the second injury, Claimant was again wcarnine4 on July 29, 197E , including buck X-rays. Comparison of the July 29, 1976 X-rays with those taken on August 21, 1975 suggested that they were X-rays of different pw:)ple. VMereas the August 21, 1975 %-rays ahuwed a normal back, the :t-rays taken on july 29, 1976 show a '8acralized L-,5 right transverse process with a false Joint." It to undisputed on the record before us that thin latter condition it a birth defect. Further examination of Claimant's medical records at that time revealed the above-described discrepancies between the signature, height and weight of the person examined on August 21, 1975 and all other known records involving Claimant. Thereafter, under dart of August 20, 1976, the Claimant was advised to report for a formal investigation on charges set forth as followss
"Your responsibility for your fniluz-a to take a pre-emplo"ent physical. eacArninaLion ors or about August 21,, 1975, when in lieu of such axaminntion some other Indi- vidual reported and was examined using your name and identification."
 Following a hearing can September 2, 1976, at which Clot was represented, he was dismissed frost the services of Carrier.
and sought his relnstatement, together with compensation at the straight-time rate
 for ell base lost. Daring handling of the claim, the Organization suggested that
 Claimant be given the opportunity to take another physical. In the meantime,
 Claimant had retained outside counsel to process other claims against Carrier,
 apparently arising out of his injuries. With the concurrence of Claimant's at
 torneycs, he was examined again with back X-rays by Dr. James Stack, an ortho
 pedic surgeon. With respect to the Z-rays, Dr. Stack reported as follows # "I
 reviewed again the three seta of X-rays. In the lumbar spine X-rays made on
 August 21, 1975, at Stirling, Illinois, the spine was considered to be within normal limits. In the X-rays dated July 29, 1976 and August 2, 1977, taken in the terminal dispensary, we see a sacralization of the right transverse process with a false joint. It is obvious that the films of 1976 and 1977 are not of the same person ass those made in 197$."
 Careful review of the record establishes beyond doubt that the *nature on the medical exassination of August 21, 1975 is not that of Claimant, Israel A. Perez. Nut only is the writing decidedly different from that of other documents,
 known and acknowledged to be signed by Claimant, but his name is not even spelled correctly on the August 21, 1975 document. At the investigation, Claimant at first said the signature was his and that he sometimes printed like that. When pressed, however
 1,v he finally conceded that it was not his signature, then again equivocated,, then finally decided it was not hiss. The record establishes be,Tond serious doubt that Claimant is a slightly-built man and that he was 5 · 9" tall and weighed 140 pads in March, 1976. At the hearing he gave his weight at between 135 and 140
 pounds "d sAId that he he? reeve- we-_ig`ted ~~u:r> *.a;u: l .`C o_)urids. rie individual who too~° the exinatin :)xr kugluqt '~, 1~7'ws r.Yqr2;r ;~tll" tai-' u~d wei~;::h.i 189 p,_)s. 7`he discrepancy fin pt,y:.icql stature betwn U:aisaant and that i.ndi vidual o: a·)ue ~ inches in haight arid some 5,0 pounds in weight rpaairUnexpleined on the rcc 3rd.
 Finally, we are convinced beyond serious doubt that the x-ray of August 21, 1975 of an examines identified as aaimgnt is not in fact his X-ray.
 In the face of the foregoing evidence, Claimant insists that he did, in fact, take the physical examination and X-rely on August 21, 1975, and flatly denies that anyone acted In his place. The Organization maintain& that the discrepancies may be expyainsd by a combination of human andjor mechanical error. Of curse, it is not beyond that realm of possibility that records could be lust or misidentified, that scales and measuring devices could be off by as much as ? inches and SO pounds, or that Claimant could have altered his signature and the spelliyig ref his name dramatically for a single day. pie do not deal here with statistical probabilities, however, nor with a standard )f proof which requires persuasion beyond any doubt. Carrier has adduced substantial recird evidence, albeit circumstantial, that Claimant did not tare the physical examination and X-rays on August ?l, :975, but rather that some )ne elqe t~,,jic them in his stead. 'for can we find that Carrier erred in coneluding th it the August 21, 1975 transaction was tantafouzt to falsification cf an eaplymcnt application. A number of awards have held that the discharge penalty in not unreasonable 3r inappropriately severe for such falsification, and we can find rx, justification on the record before us to reverse the diaxissal of Claimant. Sae Third Division Awards No. 4328, 4391, 5665, 5934, 10090, 11328, and 18475.
Public Law Board `io. 181, upon the whole record arui all of the evi
 dance, finds arid holds as follows t

 1. '"hat the t,,arrier and Fmplayes inv,:)lved in this dispute are, rea
 pectively, Carrier and x*pl:,yee within the xsanizg of the Railway Labor Act;
 that the Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein;

 and

                    3. that the Agreement was not violated. A WAR D


                    Glaia denied.


o. x. _" .;''Txx 1

 Dated i

 Dana E. Ed.ec en; "-~iaan

u. scts$e, carrf'or `er

 -