(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE.
              · ~Termiml Railroad Association of St. Louis


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

 (1) The thirty (30) days of suspension imposed upon Track Laborer Verner E. Thompson for 'violation of Rule 1110' was unwarranted and wholly disproportionate to the charge leveled against him (System File TRRA 1980-5).

 (2) Track Laborer Verner E. Thompson shall be compensated for all wage lose suffered."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a track laborer, received a thirty-day suspension
 as the result of an investigation held on February 21, 1980
 for his alleged failure to timely complete and file a personal injury form as
 provided by Carrier Rule 1110. According to the claimant, he suffered a back
 injury on January 7, 1980 while performing work for the Carrier. On that date,
 claimant did not fill out a personal injury form. While his foreman denied
 knowing of the injury in January, claimant testified that he casually mentioned
 the injury to his foreman. Two of claimant's fellow employee also knew of the
 ostensible injury. Claimant continued to work on a regular basis until
 February 8, 1980 when he complained about backpains. Claimant asserted the
 pains were related to the January 7th injury. On February 8, 1980, claimant
 and the two other employes filled out personal injury reports concerning the
 injury claimant allegedly incurred on January 7, 1980. The other two employes
 were reprimanded for their failure to file a personal injury report on
 January 7th.

 -The brgaaization raises two main arguments. First, the foreman knew of the January 7'h injury and, therefore, he should have instructed claimant to complete.thp personal injury form. Second, the organization accuses the Carrier of levying die~'iminstory discipline since the claimant received a more severe penalty than Me two fellow employes for the same offense. The Carrier disputes 'tech of. the Organization's arguments and contends the record contains substantial evidence demonstrating that claimant failed to complete the required personal injury form.

 Rule 1110 imposes an obligation on all employes to complete a personal injury report before leaving work on any day the employe is involved in an injury or witnesses an injury. The Carrier must strictly enforce Rule 1110 to enable the Carrier to allow injured employes to receive medical care, to mitigate
                  Award Number 234M Page 2

                  Dock?t Number MW-23926


its liability exposure should the employe file a claim against the Carrier,, to correct any condition causing the injury and to permit the Carrier to immediately investigate the incident. Third Division Award No. 19298 (Cole). The records in the instant case,, is clear. Claimant asserts he suffered a job related injury on January 7., 1980. He did not complete a personal injury report until February 8, 1980. While the foreman's knowledge of the injury is essentially irrelevantp this record discloses that claimant's foreman did not learn of the purported injury until February. 81 1980. Therefore, the record clearly shows claimant disobeyed Rule 1110.

 We also rule that the Carrier's discipline was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. Common sense dictates that the Carrier must strictly enforce Rule 1110. Third Di the claimant had promptly reported his injury on the date he says it occurred perhaps the Carrier would have had an opportunity to prevent the claimant from aggravating the purported injury on February 8., 1980. So, the Carrier must impose sufficient discipline to impress upon claimant his duty to report all real and suspected personal injuries. As to the disparate discipline., because the claimant was the primary protagonist in the January 7th incidentj, the Carrier could reasonably impose a harsher penalty on the claimant than it imposed on the two other e
        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board., upon the whole record and all the evidenceo finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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

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

        That the Agreement was not violated.

                                          RECEIVEp ,T·' ;


                        A W A R D


        claim denied. JAh~ 2 19- '.

                                      .C c

                              is .rl~ f

                              NATIONAL RAIL,

                                By Order of


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicagop Illinois., this 8th day of January 1982.