Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE: and
 Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway
 (Former ATSF Railway Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:


FINDINGS AND OPINION:
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the Carrier and Employees ("Parties") herein are respectively carrier and employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted by agreement and has jurisdiction of the dispute herein.
hired on March 3, 1971. He was working as a Trackman in the Carrier's Maintenance of Way
 Department on May 25, 2001, when he suffered an injury on the job. As he described the
 injury, he was using a claw bar to pry a lag screw from a road crossing plank, and in doing so he
 felt a sharp pain in his back. -

 The record on the property indicates that he did not file an injury report until June 15, 2001. As the consequence, he was sent a notice on June 18, 2001, by Division Engineer B. P. Chatten, to attend an investigation on June 25, 2001,

plb4244 269
 Public Law Board No. 4244 Award No. 269
 Case No. 276

 By agreement of the Parties, the investigation was postponed until July 13, 2001, and held on that date. A transcript of testimony and evidence taken in that investigation is a part of the record before this Board.

 The Claimant testified that he told his Foreman, on May 30, the day following his injury, that he was going to visit a chiropractor, but he did not tell the Foreman that he was injured on the job. He also attempted, several times, unsuccessfully, to contact his Roadmaster, Mr. Angel Alvarez. Not reaching Mr. Alvarez, he called another Roadmaster, Mr. Schoonover, and told, him he was going to visit the chiropractor, but again, did not disclose that his pain was the result of an injury at work.

 The record shows that May 26 and 27 were weekend days and the Claimant worked on May 28 and 29, and then was ofl~ recorded as unexcused absence May 30 and 31, and June 1. He worked on June 4, but did not report for work after that date. His status was recorded as being on medical leave of absence without pay. On June 11, 2001, the Claimant was notified that he was placed on a medical leave of absence, to expire on July 2, 2001.

 The testimony of the Claimant and that of Roadmaster Alvarez are inconsistent with regard to events between June 11 to 15, 2001, but the differences are not critical to the entire picture. The Claimant said he called Mr. Alvarez on June 11, but Mr. Alvarez denies it. On or about June 13 or 15, or perhaps on both dates, the Claimant discussed his injury with Mr. Bob Hosutt, the Carrier's Field Clinical and Rehabilitation Manager. When the Claimant described his inability to obtain lasting relief from the chiropractic therapy, Mr. Hosutt advised him to find a medical doctor of his own choosing. The record is unclear whether this conversation occurred before or after the Claimant filed an injury report.

 One thing is clear, however. On June 15, 2001, the Claimant came to Roadmaster Alvarez and asked to fill out an injury report, which was done on that date. He recorded that the injury occurred on May 25, 2001.

 Following the investigation on July 13, 2001, the Claimant was issued a Level S record suspension of 30 days for violation of Maintenance of Way Operating Rules 1.2.5 and 1.2.7. These Rules read as follows, in pertinent part:



pib4244 269 2
 Public Law Board No. 4244 Award No. 269
 Case No. 276

 That disciplinary decision was appealed by the Organization to the Carrier's highest designated officer. Denied at that level, the dispute was progressed to this Board.

 The Organization argues that even if there were evidence to support the charges (but there is insufficient evidence), the discipline is excessive in proportion to the alleged offense. Without being more specific, the Organization also argues that the Carrier failed to comply with Agreement Rule 13, the discipline rule, and Appendix No. 11, three Letters of Understanding which amend Rule 13.

 The Carrier rejoins that the evidence clearly shows that the Claimant did not file an injury report until 20 days after the injury occurred, and failed to notify the Carrier that the medical treatment he was seeking had any relationship to his alleged injury. The Carrier points out that the Claimant admitted by his own testimony that he had not complied with Maintenance of Way Operating Rules 1.2.5 and 1.2.7. The Carrier denied the Organization's appeal.

 =This-Board-also denies-the-appeal.-T'Ite evidence could notbe-clearer-that the Claimant did not comply with Maintenance of Way Operating Rules 1.2.5 and 1.2.7. Rule 1.2.5 requires that injuries must be immediately reported and the prescribed form completed. The modifying adverb "immediately" might be the subject of interpretation in some other instance, but here - the lapse of 20 days - requires no further interpretation; 20 days is not "immediately" under the circumstances of this case.

 When the Claimant discussed his intended visit to a chiropractor with a Foreman and a Roadmaster, without mentioning that his need for therapy arose from an apparent on-duty occurrence, he clearly withheld information or failed to give all the facts in connection with a personal injury.

 This Claimant was veteran employee who had previously suffered five on-duty injuries between 1980 and 1993. He was not ignorant of the necessity for prompt reporting and medical attention. Rule 1.2.5 is intended to make the employer aware of conditions which might be conducive to injury, for future avoidance, to ensure that medical attention is promptly and properly given to the injured employee, and to preclude worsening of the injury which might threaten the employee's general health and further liability by the employer.

 One aspect of the Claimant's defensive posture bears comment. In his testimony, he offered a reason for not more promptly reporting his injury:

plb4244 269 3
 Public Law Board No. 4244 Award No. 269
 Case No. 276
If employees are "harassed" for reporting a personal injury, as the Claimant suggests, it is not surprising that an employee tray risk the consequences of failure to report, especially when his injury is perceived to be minor in nature, and one which will heal itself with the passage of time. The Board is not unaware that middle-level supervisors are evaluated, in part, on their ability to control the rate of reportable injuries. This industry, and many others, proudly post signs which read something like this: "This shop has worked _ days without a reportable injury." Certainly, no supervisor wants to see a zero or any other low number in that blank space. Nor is unfavorable attention for excessive personal injuries limited to middle-level managers. Indeed, the Harriman Award is a coveted prize which might be at stake. This does not excuse an employee's failure to promptly report an injury, but the excuse submitted by this Claimant is not the first time it's been offered. Harassment or disapprobation of an injured employee for selfreporting does not encourage compliance with rules such as Maintenance of Way Operating Rule 1.2.5. While such unwelcome criticism might discourage reporting of an on-duty injury, it's unlikely it would have a greater impact on the real injury rate than an employee's personal interest in avoiding pain, risk, and expense. It is this Board's perception that avoidance of injury, rather than avoidance of renortine injury, is a worthwhile objective for the Carrier and
 the Employees, alike. -

 The Organization's allegation that the Carrier failed to comply with Agreement Rule 13 and Appendix No. 11 is not detailed in its appeal, but the Board notes the objection raised during the investigation to the introduction of the Maintenance of Way Operating Rules. We have addressed this issue several times before. In Award No. 262 of this Board, we sai~:

The Board's opinion with respect to this issue remains the same.

plb4244-269 4
 Public Law Board No. 4244 Award No. 269
 Case No. 276



                      ,1 ~ \

                                .


                    Robert J. Irvin, Neutral Member


R. B. Wehrli, Employe Member Thomas M. Rohling, Carrier tuber

                      ~o.~.bo... 16~o~i

                          Date -.


plb4244_269