' SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986

Case No. 107

Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-2253D

PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes TO DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

DISPUTE: Claim of the Organization that:

1) Claimant's alleged March 2, 1988, injury is a re
injury from a November 2, 1987, incident and he
promptly reported it when he was aware of it.
FINDINGS:
Claimant S. Celinto was employed as a trackman by Carrier. By letter dated March 7, 1988, Claimant was notified to attend a trial in connection with the following charge:

"In that on March 2, 1988, you were in violation of

Amtrak General Rule of Conduct, Rule C, which reads

in part, 'Employees will promptly report illness or

injury to themselves... to their supervisor' when you

failed to notify your foreman of your injury until the

next morning (March 3, 1988).

The trial was held on July 7, 1988, and as a result Claimant was notified by letter dated July 20, 1988, that he was found guilty of the charge and was assessed the discipline of five (5) days suspension. The organization thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging his dismissal.
This Board has thoroughly reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of failing to promptly report his injury. The record is clear that after the alleged accident, he worked his entire tour of duty without mentioning the injury to anyone. It was not until the following morning that he mentioned it. The record is also clear that the Claimant was aware

q,&tp- 101

of the rule requiring the prompt reporting of any injuries on the job.
Once this Board has determined that thereis sufficient evidence in the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set aside a carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find the carrier's action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
In this case, the Claimant received afive day suspension for not complying with the rules. Given the nature of the wrongdoing and his previous work record, this Board cannot find that that action by the Carrier was unreasonable. Therefore, the claim must be denied. Award:

Claim denied.

i

Chairman, Neutral timber

AP 6Y -

Carrier Member Employee Member

Date: 2L[9~7

2