(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steam( ship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express ( and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond, and Jervis ( Langdon, Jr., Trustees of the Property of ( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor

(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, effective February 1, 1968, particularly Rule 6-A-1, when it assessed discipline of 30 days suspension on F. V Penn Station, New York City, Metropolitan Seniority District, New York Region.

 (b) Claimant F. V. Vittore's record be cleared of the charges brought against him on April 14, 1972.

 (c) Claimant F. V. Vittore be compensated for wage loss sustained during the period out of service, plus interest at 6% per annum compounded daily.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Petitioner brings this appeal from a 30 day
 suspension assessed against Claimant after hearing
 and findings of guilt on the following charge:

The safety rule involved in the charge, Rule 2001(a), reads as follows:



The grounds of appeal are that (1) the discipline was assessed by a person other than the Hearing Officer and (2) the findings of guilt and discipline imposed are not supported by the record.


The record here provides no substantive support for the first ground of appeal. The hearing evidence produced no factual conflict and, thus, it is of no significance that the person who served as Hearing Officer did not also assess the discipline.

 The facts involved in the second point of the appeal are not in dispute. The incident underlying the charge occurred at about 2:45 a.m. on March 23, 1972, while Claimant was working his assigned hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., but Claimant did not make a report until 9:45 p.m. on March 23. His testimony on these matters is as follows:















Claimant's Supervisor, Mr. W. B. Finn, gave the following testimony:

 ,I






On the basis of the foregoing, and after considering a prior one day suspension for a safety violation in 1968, the Carrier assessed a 30 day suspension against Claimant.

 The Petitioner argues that the timing of Claimant's report of the injury was in compliance with Rule 2001(a), as reasonably interpreted, and that, consequently Second Division Award 3966 is cited as supporting this position. In that Award the Second Division held that an injury report by an employee was timely where a foreign substance, which got into an employe's eye on Friday, was reported by the employee on the following Monday which was the next work day. Thus, the Second Division has condoned a longer time-lag between injury and report than obtains in this case. However, the opinion in Award 3966 also indicated that the applicable rule failed to specify the person to whom the employee could have reported. The rule in this case contains no comparable defect; it clearly names the employe's immediate supervisor as the person to whom an injury must be reported and, therefore, the cited Award is not apropos. The record here involves an unambiguous reporting requirement which not only serves the Carrier's interest in protecting against false claims for injuries, but also serves the employees' interest in getting prompt medical attention for on-the-job injuries. The Claimant admitted that he did not report the i


felt "a little pull" in his arm; other evidence showed that by the time of his report the arm was "black and blue" from the shoulder to the wrist. So, while we perceive that a nineteen hour lag between injury and report might not be untimely in every situation, we believe that Carrier was justified in Claimant had not properly complied with the reporting requirement. We are concerned, though, about the quantum of discipline because we believe it was excessive in the context of the entire record. Claimant was 49 years old and had 30 years service with the Carrier when this incident arose. So far as the record before us shows, the Claimant had an unblemished record except for a one day suspension in 1968. Also, in the instant case, the Claimant worked for three hours after he felt the "pull" in his arm and we believe this provides a strong indication that, for 23, the Claimant regarded his injury as having a non-reportable nature. We shall therefore reduce the discipline to fifteen days and award that Carrier shall pay Claimant for fifteen days of wage loss without interest.



That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and



The discipline is reduced to fifteen days and Carrier shall pay Claimant fifteen days wage loss without interest.


ATTEST:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1974.