h
4,
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 279
Award No. 593
Docket No. 593
U.P. File No. 920441
Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
to and
Dispute Union Pacific Railroad Company
(Former Missouri Pacific)
Statement
of Claim: (1) Carrier violated the Agreement, especially Rule 12,
when J. L. Conley (SSN 499-66-2493) was dismissed from
service on May 1, 1992 for falsifying an injury report.
(2) Claim in behalf of Mr. Conley for wage loss suffered
beginning May 1, 1992, until reinstated with seniority,
vacation and all other rights unimpaired.
Findings: The Board has jurisdiction by reason of the parties
Agreement establishing this Board therefor.
The Claimant, Machine Operator Helper J. L. Conley, was
notified to attend three separate investigations covering
several incidents on the charges of:
"(1) Allegedly falsified an on duty, off company property
vehicle accident, in which you allegedly sustained a
personal injury;
(2) That while working as a Machine Operator Helper, on Gang
9162, in the vicinity of Maumelle, Arkansas, you falsified
an on duty, off company property vehicle accident, in which
you sustained a personal injury;
(3) and (4) for being absent without authority; and for
tampering with a urine specimen."
As a result of the hearing, the Carrier concluded.-.
culpability and the Claimant was dismissed from service. as,
discipline therefor.
Claimant was accorded the due process to which entitled
under Rule 12. The record reflects as to the charge
concerning the falsification of an injury report to be in
support of the Carrier's conclusion of culpability. Carrier
concluded the conflict in testimony against the Claimant.
As to the case involving being absent without authority
the Claimant admitted that he was in jail on the dates in
question and that he had no authority to be absent therefor
The third case involved tampering with an urine
specimen which, in essence, is choosing to refuse to give a
urine sample. The collector's experience reflects that she
has accomplished some 2,400 tests. Not one of such tests
encountered a temperature of not registering on the strip
and the specimen being cold to touch. Carrier's conclusion
is supported by the fact that the Claimant gave the second
specimen within an hour and ten minutes later the cretein
level was 156 mg. In the opinion of the Carrier's expert
witness, this low level of cretein could be caused by
something used to dilute the urine. Hence, lending support
to the Carrier's conclusion.
The discipline is not unreasonable. The claim will be
denied. In reality it is a moot issue as discipline was
upheld in case 594.
The essential facts in Case No. 1 are that Claimant on
February 27, 1992 was instructed to use his personal vehicle
to drive to take his yearly Engineering Services physical
examination. On his return therefrom, the Claimant alleged
that he was involved in an automobile accident in which he
was injured. The Carrier had taken him for medical
treatment. The doctor found nothing wrong with the
Claimant. The observations of the Carrier supervisors
differed with what the employee asserted. Those
observations differed so strongly from the Claimant's
version of the facts that guilt is presumed therefrom.
There was no physical corroboration of the accident.
Incidentally, the site of Claimant's version to the Carrier
officers differs from that given to fellows employees.
Photographs that the Carrier introduced of course differed
from the Claimant's version of where, when and how the
accident occurred. Like the oft quoted expression "a
picture is worth a thousand words," they operated against
the Claimant's testimony. This claim will be denied.
Award: Claim denied.
S. A. Hammons, Jr., Employee Mem6ee ~LaF ex'Ja
-4L
Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman
and Neutral Member
Issued November 27, 1993.