(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

(1) The five (5) days of suspension imposed upon Cook E. N. Hartley for alleged 'Late report of injury sustained 8/6/82' was arbitrary and on the basis of unproven charges (System Docket CR-59-D).

(2) The charge leveled against the claimant shall be removed from his record and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."





Following the hearing, the Claimant was assessed a disciplinary penalty of five days' suspension.

The substance of the brief investigative hearing is contained in the two following exchanges:










                  Docket Number MW-25939


          A. no.


        Q. Mr. Hartley, how in fact, did an injury get reported from you?


        A. I told J. Smak. Joe is the supervisor. I told him about Mr. Wertman first, and I said I had a pulling in my chest but I was not going to do anything, it was getting better. I was

        surprised when Mr. Wilson called me and told me to take both of us to Holy Spirit Hospital and I

        said, 'Both of us?'"


As to the physical examination referred to in the answer cited above, the Carrier introduced no medical findings.

It appears that the Carrier, in imposing discipline, relied entirely upon the Claimant's statement that he felt a "pullness in my chest". This is not in itself evidence that such was related to any particular activity by the Claimant or that there was any "injury". An employe's responsibility for prompt report of injury is well established, in this instance by Safety Rule 3000. To hold an employe in violation of such requirement, however, there must be some evidence of the existence of a traumatic event -- either as reported by the employe or by independent observation of others. Such is entirely lacking here.

In its Rebuttal Submission, the Carrier supplied an Accident Repor~ Form dated August 10, 1982 allegedly signed by the Claimant. Had this been introduced at the investigative hearing, there may have been more substance to the Carrier's action. Since it was not introduced at the hearing, and the Board was not made aware that it was even referenced during the on-propertv claim handling procedure, the Board is foreclosed from considering it at this point.

The Carrier has failed to show that the Claimant was tardy in reporting an injury, since :here was no evidence provided at the investigat:-.. hearing that there had been an injury.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole recor,! 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 Fmploves within the meaning of the Railway Labor ac:, as approved June 21, 1934;

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

        That the Agreement was violated.

                  Award Number 25969 Page 3

                  Docket Number MW-25939

                  A WAR D


        Claim sustained.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Nancy J. e r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of March 1986.