PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The thirty (30) days of suspension imposed upon Section Laborer M.
 Callender for alleged "failure to follow instructions to immediately report personal
 injuries to your foreman or appropriate railroad official December 6, 1981", for
 alleged "failure to follow instructions when you went to St. Joseph's Hospital on
 December 7, 1981" and for alleged "falsification of an injury report on December
 8, 1981" was without just and sufficient cause, arbitrary and on the basis of
 unproven charges (System File N&W 1982-4/f4W-STD-81-14).
(2) The claimant's record shall be cleared of the charges leveled against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered:
OPINION OF BOARD: An investigation was held on January 14, 1982, to determine
 whether Claimant failed to report immediately his alleged
 personal injuries to his Foreman on December 6, 1981, failed to follow instructions
 when he went to St. Joseph's Hospital on December 7, 1981, and falsified an Injury
 Report on December 8, 1981. Based upon the investigative record, Claimant was
 notified by letter, dated February 2, 1982, that he was being assessed a thirty
 (30) day suspension for the aforesaid actions. The suspension ran from February
 3, 1982 through March 5, 1982.
In defense of his petition, Claimant argues that his Foreman was fully apprised of his injury since the Foreman was present when the injury occurred on December 6, 1981. He asserts that the corroborative eyewitness testimony provided by his co-workers disproves the denials of Section Foreman Terry L. Hitchcock and Roadmaster Tunnie Hitchcock who testified they were unaware Claimant sustained an injury on December 6, 1981. Claimant avers that Section Foreman Hitchcock was also present in the truck when the work gang returned to its headquarters and was able to hear the crew discuss his injury. Claimant testified at his investigation that he did not know if reporting an accident would be considered grumbling and indicated that he "really did not know what to do". He denied falsifying the Injury Report, filed on December 8, 1981; and contended that he went to the hospital several hours after the injury "only" because the pain in his leg intensified.
                    Locket Number MW-25115


Carrier asserts that Claimant failed to report his purported injury to Section Foreman Hitchcock who was present at the situs, contrary to the explicit requirements of Rule 1001 of NW Safety Rules and Rules of General Conduct. Section Foreman Hitchcock testified at the investigation that Claimant had not reported any injury to him and disclaimed any awareness or knowledge of an injury. Roadmaster Tunnie Hitchcock testified that Claimant had not reported an injury to him and indicated he was unaware an injury occurred. Rule 1001 provides:
        "Employees must report personal injuries to their immediate supervisor or the designated employe immediately in charge of the work before leaving the premises. The supervisor or designated employee in immediate charge of the work is responsible for reporting all personal injuries witnessed by the sup or designated employee known to the supervisor or designated employee to insure that reports will be and distributed promptly in accordance with Company rules.


        Failure to report a personal injury by the injured person or the employee in immediate charge of the work may result in disciplinary action.


        Every case of personal injury, accident or damage to pFoperty must be reported as soon as possible by quickest available means 'of communication and a wr report on the prescribed form rendered promptly. Such reports must contain full details and names and addresses of all witnesses and all particulars of the occurrence."


Carrier avers that Claimant was fully mindful of his reporting obligations as evidenced by his five (5l prior injuries and his signaturized acknowledgement of this responsibility when he signed Bulletin MW-86 on October 19, 1981. This Bulletin set forth procedures for injured employes. It requires that seriously injured employes will be taken immediately to the hospital or the Doctor's office and requires that all other injured employes will be taken to the Foreman's office. Carrier maintains that Claimant failed to observe the relevant injury notification procedures and blatantly falsified the Injury Report when he noted that Section Foreman Terry Hitchcock and Roadmaster Tunnie Hitchcock witnessed the accident. It contends that he was dishonest and as such, the discipline imposed was warranted.
In our review of this case, we concur with Carrier's position. While an accident may have occurred when Claimant and his three (3) co-workers were moving rail, the record is clear that Claimant failed to notify his Foreman in accordance with the pertinent rules when he was injured. Merely relying on the supposition that the Section Foreman and the Roadmaster were de facto aware of this injury is insufficient, especially where Claimant had experienced prior injuries and was fully mindful of his reporting obligations. His situation is not that of a new or inexperienced employe. To be sure, a testimonial conflict
                    Award Number 25296 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-25115


exists between the Supervisor's denial of the alleged accident and the Claimant's co-workers who testified otherwise, but this impasse does not override Claimant's primary responsibility to observe the rules. He was patently remiss by not formally or explicitly notifying his Supervisor of his alleged injury and his assertions that the Section Foreman and Roadmaster had probable knowledge is unpersuasive. Under these circumstances and in view of his past disciplinary record, the discipline assessed was neither unreasonable nor an abuse of managerial discretion and it is hereby affirmed.
        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 not violated.


                          A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


                        0-00


Attest:
        Nancy J er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1985.