(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The dismissal of Trackman A. Diaz was without just and sufficient cause and on the basis of unpr
(2) The claim as presented to Chief Engineer L. J. Held by General Chairman Hawkes in a lette exactly as presented because Chief Engineer Held did not give reasons for his declination** thereof dated March 2, 1973.

 (3) Trackman A. Diaz be allowed eight hours' pay for each work day and each holiday beginning January 2, 1973 and continuing until he is reinstated with seniority, pass and vacation rights unimpaired.

 *Reference to investigation held January 30, 1973, in connection with charges and dismissal of Section Laborer Arthur Diaz.

 It is our contention that rules of our agreement are violated, especially discipline rule, and time is being claimed by and in behalf of Laborer Diaz for 8 hours each work day, including holidays falling therein, beginning January 2, 1973, and continuing until reinstated with seniority, pass and vacation rights unimpaired.

 The transcript of investigation clearly shows that Mr. Diaz did not refuse to fill out Personal Injury Form 60-HB: there is no rule that states a man must fill out these foams under the supervision of a railroad official. Should Mr. Diaz been given the forms to take home, they would have been properly filled out.

** Reference your letter of February 26, 1973 claiming pay for time lost by Laborer Arthur Diaz account dismissal of Laborer Diaz from the service of the Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company.



OPINION OF BOARD: Trackman Diaz was dismissed from service for failure
 to comply with the instructions of his superior and
 for failure to complete a personal injury report in accordance with Rules
 E and F of the General Rules.



The Organization alleges that the Carrier's response in declining the claim in the first instance failed to meet the criteria of Section l(a) of Article V of the National Agreement of August 21, 1954 in that no reason for disallowance was given.

 The Carrier's letter declining the claim and the above referenced provisions of the August 21, 1954 Agreement read as follows:

















                            /s/ L. J. Held


        L. J. Held

        LJH: ch. Chief Engineer

        cc: Mr. B. C. Adams

        Mr. M. C. Dement."


                ARTICLE V. AUGUST 21. 1954 AGREEMENT


        "1. All claims or grievances arising on or after January 1, 1955 shall be handled as follows:


        (a) All claims or grievances must be presented in writing by or on behalf of the employee involved, to the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same, within 60 days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based. Should any such claim or grievance be disallowed, the carrier shall, within 60 days from the date same is filed, notify whoever filed the claim or grievance (the employee or his representative) in writing of the reasons for such disallowance. If not so notified, the claim or grievance shall be allowed as presented, but this shall not be considered as a precedent or waiver of the contentions of the Carrier as to other similar claims or grievances."


The Organization urges the Board to allow the claim as presented in accordance with the above provision.

 We are of the opinion that the March 2, 1973 letter of the Carrier quoted above does not meet the requirement of Article V in regard to a statement of the reason for d shall be allowed "as presented" from January 2, 1973 until May 3, 1973.

 It is clear from National Disputes Committee Decision 16 and the many awards in accord with said decision that a default of this nature is cured by a proper denial letter which meets the requirements of Article V. In this case, said letter was Carrier's letter of May 3, 1973. See Disputes Committee Decision 16 and Awards 18130, 14603 and 15070.

        We will now consider the merits of the case.


On December 20, 1972, Claimant suffered an injury while performing his job. He was requested to fill out a form 60-HB personal injury report in accordance with Rule F quoted above. Further, on January 2, 1973, the super-
                Award Number 20506 Page 4

                Docket Number MW-20621


intendent of Maintenance of Way personally instructed Claimant to fill out the form. Claimant refused to do so stating he wanted to take them home for his attorney to check. Claimant was then dismissed from service.

 We have held before and now hold that the requirement that injuries by promptly reported is reasonable. In failing to file the report required by the rules from December 20, 1972 to January 2, 1973, the Claimant subjected himself to disciplina
There is nothing in the record to indicate that the discipline rendered in this case was unjust or unreasonable. The Claimant had 12 days to confer with his attorney in regard to this matter. The Carrier waited a sufficient time for the Claimant to comply with its rules.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
        and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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

        That the Agreement was violated.


                    A W A R D


Claim sustained in part and denied in part in accordance with this Opinion.

                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        ·xcutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of November 1974.