Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11006
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11021
 2-SSR-MA-'86
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee W. J. Peck when award was rendered.

 (International Association of Machinists and ( Aerospace Workers Parties to Dispute: (Seaboard System Railroad

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. That the Seaboard System Railroad violated Rule 30, but not limited thereto, of the Controlling Agreement, when it unjustly suspended Machinist H. D. Watkins for 20 days beginning April 10, 1984 and running continuously through April 29, 1984.

 2. That accordingly, the Seaboard System Railroad be ordered to compensate Machinist Watkins for all pay and benefits lost (made whole) as a result thereof and his record be cleared of the charge.

 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 is a Machinist employed at Carrier's Uceta Shops at Tampa, Florida. He has been employed by this Carrier since February 29, 1968.

 On Friday, January 27, 1984, while walking on a paved area on Company property near the Shop building at approximately 7:30 P.M. Claimant allegedly stepped on a rock and twisted his knee. He immediately experienced some pain but completed his shift without making any report of the injury to his on duty Supervisor. He departed the Shop at 11:30 P.M. The following Saturday and Sunday were his rest days. He returned to work on January 30, 1984 and reported his injury to Assistant Foreman F. H. Pollard. Claimant also requested that he be allowed to see a Company doctor due to what he described as a recurrence of an injury dating back to June 23, 1979. Arrangements were made for an appointment with a Company physician for February 1, 1984, after which he was required to complete the Carrier's standard Personal Injury Report.
 Form 1 Award No. 11006
 Page 2 Docket No. 11021
 2-SSR-MA-'86
 On February 7, 1984 Claimant was cited for formal Investigation,
 notice of which reads in part:









Claimant was also advised that he could by his own arrangement have witnesses present who had knowledge of the matter being investigated, that he could be represented in accord with the provisions of the Controlling Agreement and that at the close of the Investigation his personal record as it relates to personal injuries and as it relates to discipline would be reviewed.

 At the request of the Employes the Investigation was postponed and held on date of February 24, 1984. The Claimant was represented by the General Chairman and the Local Chairman. He called no witnesses. The Carrier called two witnesses but neither testified.

 The Investigation was held as scheduled and on April 4, 1984, Carrier advised the Claimant that account not making a prompt report of this injury he was being assessed a twenty day suspension to begin Tuesday, April 10, 1984 and ending Sunday, April 29, 1984, both dates inclusive.

 The Employes contend that the Claimant believed that this was merely "the symptoms of an old injury" and that accordingly the Claimant was under no obligation to report the rock incident until he became aware of its significance relative to an old injury and further that "he obviously thought that he had merely aggravated an existing problem with his knee which had already been reported."

 We note, in part the following transcript testimony, page 16, Claimant's Representative questions him:
 Form 1 Award No. 11006
 Page 3 Docket No. 11021
 2-SSR-MA-'86
 "Q. On January 27, 1984, were you walking out
 side between the, well, I guess the south
 side of the shop, about 7:30?
 "A. Yes, sir.
 "Q. Is this area paved?
 "A. Yes.
 "Q. After stepping on the rock, which, caused
 you to twist your knee, did you experience
 more pain in your left knee and did it
 later on that night or the next day swell up?
 "A. Yes.
 "Q. Did you feel that this was just simply an
 aggrevation (sic) of the old injury and it
 would get better soon with self-treatment
 and would give you no problems?
 "A. I did."

 Going back to page 10 we note the following transcript testimony, Hearings Officer questions the Claimant:














Form 1 Award No. 11006
 Page 4 Docket No. 11021
 2-SSR-MA-'86

 All of this testimony indicates that the Claimant by his own testimony had injured or reinjured his knee on January 27, 1984. He apparently noticed the pain immediately, he did not report it to the Carrier until three days later. His Claim that he thought it was a mere aggravation to an old injury is irrelevant as we fail to see any difference, at least in this case, between an aggravation to an old injury or a reinjury to an old injury. We also note that Claimant has had eighteen injuries in sixteen years. He of all people should know the necessity of making a prompt report of all injuries. If the injury turns out to be not serious, no harm is done, if the injury turns out to be serious then prompt medical attention can be administered. Carrier's Rules on this matter are not unreasonable. We believe they are very necessary and reasonable. It is clear that Claimant did violate this necessary and reasonable Rule. We will deny the Claim.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: --
        Nancy J. eg~Wr_ - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of October 1986.

 Iwo