Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10639
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10710
 2-UP-MA-'85
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
 (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
 (Workers, AFL-CIO
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Union Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier violated the Controlling Agreement, Rule 37, but not limited thereto, when it assessed a thirty (30) day deferred suspension to Machinist T. E. Nelson's (hereafter referred to as Claimant) personal record.
2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to remove the thirty (30J day deferred suspension from Claimant's personal record.
FINDINGS:
The Second Diviswon 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, Machinist T. E. Nelson, has been employed by the Carrier, Union! Pacific Railroad Company, since December 1, 1973, at the Salt Lake City Diesel. Shop.
On April 23, 1983, Claimant sustained an on-the-job injury to his eyes. Because of the injury, the Claimant was unable to fill out an accident report by himself. The Claimant's Supervisor helped him to fill out the report, however, and it was submitted that day but without the Claimant's signature.
A few days later, the Claimant was instructed to fill out a second accident report; he did so but did not turn it in, acting on the advice of his Organization representative.
 Form 1 Award No. 1063.'
 Page 3 Docket No. 10710
 2-UP-MA-'85
With respect to the substantive issues, the record is clear that the Carrier did receive prompt notification of the Claimant's injury. On the same day as the injury, the Claimant had a Supervisor help him fill out the accident report, although the Claimant neglected to sign it. Rule 45 states:


This Board therefore finds that since the Claimant did submit a written report of the accident as soon as he was able, he complied with the requirements of Rule 45.
However, the Carrier later requested that the Claimant fill out a second accident report; and although the Claimant had reportedly completed it, he has refused to submit it. He was instructed by the Carrier to submit the second report, and he has refused.
Athough the Organization argues that there was no need for the second report, the facts are clear that the Claimant disregarded the clear instructions of the Carrier. Hence, he was in violation of Rule B, General Regulation 704,, and General Safety Instruction 4004 -of Form 7908, "Rules Governing Duties and Department of Employees, Safety Instructions and Use of Radio." Those rules state as follows: