In June of 1984 the Claimant was instructed to attend an investigiation concerning an allegation that he did not report an asserted injury sustained while on duty. Subsequent to the investigation he was dismissed from service.

A review of the transcript and the record as a whole shows that the Employee claims that he was injured while working on a Friday but, he concedes, he did not notify anyone.

Moreover, testimony of other Employees confirms that he made no indirect complaint about having injured himself.

The Foreman of the gang was not notified until the followng Monday because the Employee ". . . didn't think it was serious." The Claimant stated that he felt certain pain when he slipped on a rock but "just got up and went back to work". In fact, (he asserts) he had suffered a fracture of the leg.

The pertinent rule states that Employees must report promptly to proper authority any injury sustained on duty or on Company property. Further, the rule requires that

notification be made prior to the end of the Employee's tour of duty.

As indicated above, the Employee asserts that he had no immediate realization of the severity of the injury when it was sustained and consequently did not feel compelled to make any notification Further, the Organization argues that even if a technical violation is found, the punishment of dismissal is too severe.

The Company has set forth evidence to show that this Employee knew full well of

the existance of the, rule. It also stresses the testimony of record in which the Employee

admits that he knew that he had been injured. Accordingly, it is established with

certainty that the Employee violated the portion of the rule that requires immediate

notification. _ _

The Board has reviewed the record at length and in considering the severity of Carrier's actions, we have presumed that (in fact) the Employee was injured while on Company property and the injury was slight, in his mind, at the time. Nonetheless, the very reason for the rule which mandates timely notification of any injury is apparent in this case. While the Claimant may have felt the injury was slight, it resulted in a bone fracture and the Carrier was subjected to certain liability. There is nothing. unreasonable about a Carrier promulgating a rule which assists it in making immediate investigation when liability is involved. Under the circumstances, we fiend no reason to disregard the long established rule of Referees serving Public Law Boards. We are. disinclined to substitute our judgment for that of the Carrier unless circumstances warrant that action.

FINDINGS