Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9915
 SECOND DIVISION Locket No. 10060
 2-MP-CM-'84
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
 (

Dispute: Claim of Enployes:








Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


Claimant, Carman J. Smith, has been employed by the Carrier in the Houston, Texas, repair facility, known as Settegast Yard since approximately 1974. Following a personal injury sustained by the Claimant on September 5, 1980, Claimant received notice to report for a formal disciplinary investigation:









Form 1 Award No. 9915
 Page 2 Docket No. 10060
 2-MP-CM-'84
The investigation was scheduled for November 17, 1980, but was postponed at the request of the organization until December 8, 1980. Following the investiga,.in the Claimant received a 30-day deferred suspension for violating Rules F and 126.
The Organization's position is that the Carrier did not prove that Claimant jumped from Car MPX 4653. Furthermore, the Organization contends that the Claimant complied with Rule F because he informs-d General Foreman R. T. Wyatt of his injury at 9 a. m. on September 6, 1980, the morning following the injury. Mr. Wyatt testified that the Claimant informed him of the injury on September 6, 1980.
Additionally, the Organization contends that the assessment of disciplines was arbitrary, unfair, and capricious in violation of Rule 32 of the controlling agreement. Rule 32 states:






The Carrier's position is that the Claimant was proven by his own testimony to have violated Safety Rules F and 126 at a procedurally proper investigation. It is further the Carrier's position that the discipline assessed was not excessive. In fact, the Carrier argues that the discipline, which caused no lost time or lost wages, is preventative rather than punitive. The Carrier argues that such preventative discipline is necessary as violations of these safety rules could
 have potentially serious consequences to the employes and the Carrier..

Additionally, the Carrier contends that the investigation was not unreasonably delayed and that the Claimant was accorded all of the procedural rights of Rule 32. The Carrier argues that Rule 32 does not contain a time period within which investigations must be held. Furthermore, the Carrier points out that since the Organization requested postponement of the investigation, the Organization cannot now be heard to complain that the investigation was unreasonably delayed.
After reviewing the record, this Board finds that the Claimant was correctly charged with having violated the Uniform-Code of Safety Rules F and 126. The Claimant testified that he was familiar with the safety rules regarding alighting from a freight car, and yet he admitted that he stepped down off the car without using the sill steps or handholds. When asked why he did not use the proper safety equipment to get off '-he car, he replied, "I guess T wasn't thinking at the time." Claimant thereby violated Rule 126_
 Form 1 Award No. 991
 Page 3 Docket No. 10060
 2-MP-CM-'84
The evidence clearly shows that the Claimant knew that he injured himself upon dismounting from the car and that he did not inform anyone of his injury until the next day. Claimant testified that he was aware of the requirement to report his injury immediately but that he did not report it on the day it occurred because "I thought it was nothing to myself." Thus, the Claimant was properly found to have violated Safety Rule F.
When an employe injures himself on the job and fails to report that injury immediately, the Carrier is placed in a precarious position. The employe has gone home without reporting his injury. The Carrier has no way of conclusively lowing whether the injury occurred on the job or off the job. This lack of knowledge could have serious legal ramifications.
Safety rules are made to protect both the employe and the Carrier. These rules must be enforced if they are to have any meaning.
The discipline assessed to the Claimant was not excessive. It c-st him no lost time or wages and was imposed for the purpose of reminding him to follow the safety rules.
It is well established that this Board should not substitute its judgment for that of the Carrier in discipline cases where it has produced substantial evidence that the offense charged was committed. While the administration of disciplinary action should not seem haphazard or capricious, it is clear that: the imposition of discipline is within managerial discretion. As there is substantial evidence that these violations were committed, this Board will not set aside the Carrier's disciplinary action. The Board further finds that the Claimant was accorded all rights due him under Rule 32.
                        A W A R D


    Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: ~Z,

        Nancy J. a -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of May, 1984