N AT1ONAL RAILROi) A.D,LUSTM ENT B
 
THIRD 'DIVISION
 
Award No. 41691
 
Docket No. CL-41934
 
13-3-N RA B-00003- I 20269
 
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Martin W. Finger hut 'When award was rendered
 
(Transportation Communications International Union PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
 
  (B NSF Railway Company
 
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
 
  "Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-13217) that:
 
  Carrier acted in arbitrary and unjust manner when on May 24, 2010, Carrier issued a record suspension of 30 days, Level S, and a three (3) year probation period to Claimant James Esposito at Cicero, Illinois, thereby violating Rule 56 of the TCU Agreement, along with other pertinent rules and agreements not specifically stated herein.
 
  Carrier shall now be required to remove all references of Claimant's charges, investigation and discipline assessed from Claimant's personal record.
 
  Carrier shall further be required to compensate Claimant for any lost earnings as a result of Carrier's charges and decision."
 
FINDINGS:
 
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and I the evidence, finds that:
 
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.
 
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
 
herein.
  Fouce 1   Award No. 41691
  Page 2   Docket No. CL-41934
  _ -NRA 8-00003-120269
  Parties to said dispute were given due Lice of hearing thereon.
  The Claimant, following a disciplinary Investigation, was assessed a 30-day suspension coupled with a three-year probationary period for violating Rule 5-28.1.3 of the Carrier's Safety Rules. '[he Safety Rule, in pertinent part, requires employees to
  "Report by the first means of communication any .   . personal
  injuries
  The Claimant's personal injury was described in his written accident report, which was read into the record of the investigation. The accident report, dated April 13, 2010, recited that at about 11:30 P.M. on April 11, 2010:
  "I then turned and stepped up to the asphalt. When I shifted my weight to step up my foot slipped and rolled to the side. I felt a small amount of pain, but proceeded to the ramp vehicle to be taken in for the night. The pain increased as I walked from the hostler parking area to the building. I went home. When I got out of my car I couldn't apply any pressure to ow left foot; I then proceeded to the Emergency Room and was told I had a sprained ankle."
 
  The Claimant's testimony at the Investigation was essentially in accord with his written statement.
 
  The Carrier's Manager of the Hub operations at Cicero, Illinois, testified that she received a telephone call from the Claimant at "approximately 11-11:30 a.m," on the morning of April 12. The stated purpose of the call was to ascertain the procedure to be followed after suffering an on-duty injury. The Claimant was advised to call his supervisor, which he did thereafter.
 
  A review of the above facts shows that the Claimant knew that he had suffered an on-duty injury either before he left the Carrier's property or, at the latest, an hour later after he arrived at his home. There is no contention, let alone evidence, that the Claimant was not aware of Safety Rule S-28.1.3, or that he could not have notified a Carrier supervisor at the Hub at any time after he became aware of the injury on the evening of April 11. Instead, the Claimant delayed until 11:00 A.M. the following morning, at the earliest, to contact the Carrier. Clearly, the Claimant had not complied with his obligation to "report by the first means of communication" the on-duty injury incurred.
 
Forin   Award No. 41691
Page 3   Docket No. C1,41934
13-3-NRA B-00003-120269
  As noted above, the discipline assessed following the Investigation was a 30-day suspension coupled with a three-year probationary period. The Board has consistently held that failure to promptly report an on-duty injury subjects the employee to severe discipline. 'Fypical of such cases is Third Division Award 26663, wherein the Board stated:
 
  the purpose of the reporting requirement is that the Carrier is entitled to receive such reports promptly since such incidents mayinvolve liability on the part of the Carrier. The reporting requirement also benefits the employee due to the obligation of the Carrier to furnish medical care to an injured employee. Third Division Award 24654; Fourth Division Award 4199. Indeed, we stated in Third Division Award 25162, 'any employee who does not comply with the accident reporting rule does so at his peril.' Claimant clearly did not meet his obligations under the Rule and we can find no reason to justify disturbing Carrier's action of dismissal."
 
  The discipline assessed in the instant case was neither excessive nor arbitrary. Accordingly, the claim is denied.
 
 
AWARD
  Claim denied.
 
ORDER
  This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
 
 
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division

 
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of September 2013.