Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29468
 THIRD DIVISION Docket 4o. MW-29993
 92-3-91-3-386
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

(1) The five (5) day suspension imposed upon R. A. Ferguson
 for '...responsibility to connection with your failure to properly
 report personal injury to Mr. Richard A. Ockerman and his viol4tton of
 improper lifting per CSX Safety Handbook Rule No. 902(c) while working
 at Bridge No. 595.8 near Maysville, Kentucky on August 15, 1990. ah*'
 was unwarranted, wit',iout just .ind sufficient cause and based on
 unproven charges (Syvcem File C-D-7110/12(90-79?) COS].

 (2) As .n consequence of the violation referred to Lo Part (1) above, the CLatmant'i record shall be cleared of the charge» leveled against him and he shall he compensated for all wage la i· suffered."

 FINDINGS:

 The Third Dlvlalon of the Adjustment Board, upon the wh',le record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes llv)Iied in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Ratlwvy Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurtsdlctiun over the dispute Involved herein.

 Parties to sat.i ,itspute waived right of appearance at hrartig thereon.

 The Claimant has vqtibltshed and holds seniority as a Bridge and Building (868) Foreman. On August 15, 1990, Claimant and hia crew were assigned to replace guard rails on Bridge No. 595.8 near Maysville, Kentucky. They began work at about 6:00 A.M. with 4 .rev of five employees, lncl,idtn3 R&B Mechanic Ockerman.
 Form 1 Award No. 29468
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29993
 92-3-91-3-386

 Mr. Ockerman was assigned the task of operating an air drill used for drilling pilot holes for bolts used to fasten guard rails to the bridge. Approximately two hours after he began work, Mr. Ockerman pulled up on his drill to dislodge it from a hole in which It had stuck. Shortly after that exertion, he left his position and reported to the Claimant that he felt a "twinge" in his back. No accident report was filled out at that time, and Mr. Ockerman continued working, completing his tour of duty without incident. The following day, Mr. Ockerman filed an injury report.







Following the hearing, Claimant was notified on September 14, 1990 that he was being .isiessed "five (5) days ctual suspension beginning September '_4, and ending September 28, 1990." The
 Organization appealed the dtsctpLine on September 20, L990. Thit'
 appeal was declined by t'ie Carrier on October 1 5, 1990. The
 Organization then appealed ~ip to and LncludLn& the highest Cirri-!r
 officer authorized t) handle quch matters. The claim was alA)
 discussed in cunfere,ice on April 5, L991, after which it reialie,l
 ~inresolved. Accordingly, it is properly before the Board f.)r
 adjudication.

 It is the poeltlon of the Carrier that Its General safety Rule N40 is clear ,and unequivocal. Rule 940 reads in pertinent part as follows:

The Carrier »t-ta that the C~aimant admitted at the investigatory heartig :',at `1r. Ockerman had reported his Injury on August 15, 1990. In light of the importance of reporting injuries and in view of the Clatiant's years of experience as a foreman, there is no excuse for his faii,,re to fill out a timely injury report. Thus, Carrier maintains t'iat the discipline assessed was appropriate and
 Form 1 Award No. 29468
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29993
 92-3-91-3-386
 should be left undisturbed.

 For its part, the organization maintains that neither Claimant nor Mr. Ockerman felt there was a "reportable" injury until Mr. Ockerman returned to work on August 16, 1990. It notes that when the Claimant asked Mr. Ockerman on August 15, 1990 "if he was going to be alright and he said yes." When Mr. Ockerman finally acknowledged his injury the following day, Claimant filed an injury report as required by Carrier's rules. Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to discipline Claimant, and Carrier's assessment of the five-Jay suspension should be overturned and Claimant made whole for wages lost.

 It has been established on the record before the Boari that the Claimant has had consiJerable experience as a foreman. Moreover, he testified at the investigatory hearing that Mr. Ockerman t,-)Id him "he had hurt his back a Little bit, and was aching" after attempting to dislodge his drill. Claimant apparently made a judgment that, because Mr. Ockerman was able to return to his job, It was unnecessary to report the latter's injury. The language of Rule 40 is clear and unambiguous. "Upon receipt of such report [of an injury], the employee in charge n « !ie supervisor must .uake a prompt written report of the injury .... Clilmant's failure to report Mr. Ockerman's injury on the day it occurred was zlearly in' violation of that Rule. Accordingly, the Bo.,r.l sees no reason to disturb Carrier's assessment of discipline.

        Claim dented.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMBNIsl~t:~

                          By Order of Third Divlslo,


Attest:
        -Nancy J. r - "Executive Secretary


Dated, at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of December 1992.