2 The record indicates that Claimant injured his foot knocking off anchors on July 25, 1994. His testimony was that he did not think it was so bad, and he thought that he could make it without doing anything about it and that it might get better. Furthermore, he testified "and I had been told through a previous safety meeting that if you get hurt again, was going to get pulled out of service, so I thought I could make it but it got worse." The injury apparently got worse and on July 31, on a Sunday, Claimant went to see a doctor at the emergency room at the hospital. It was after that visit that he called his foreman. He informed his foreman that he would not be at work the next day due to a doctor's appointment. However, he did not tell the foreman at that time that he was injured at work or that he was getting medical attention for an on-duty injury. It was at a I

subsequent call, on August 1, Monday evening, that the Claimant told his foreman that he could not come to work and he needed to fill out an accident report. It appears that the Claimant was not cleared to return to work until August 22 as a result of this injury.- Subsequently, an investigation was held charging Claimant as indicated above in the claim, and he was found guilty and dismissed from service.

The Union believes that the injury in question was one which Claimant did not feel was serious enough to warrant a report. He was subsequently found to be wrong, but nevertheless, was disciplined by dismissal. The Organization relies, in part, on Rule 94 of the 1975 Agreement which indicates that employees injured

3 at work will not be required to make accident reports before they are given medical attention or file them as soon as practicable thereafter. Practical medical attention was supposed to be given at the earliest possible moment.

Carrier notes that the injury report was ultimately filled out on August 4. Furthermore, Claimant admitted a violation of Carrier's rules at the investigation.

This is a classic case of an employee not following the prescribed rules which have been established over a long period of time with respect to injuries. It has been held, and this Board concurs, that rule violations with respect to the reporting of injuries are extremely serious, particularly when the employee is one

of long standing who has had experience with other injuries in the past. It is apparent that a Carrier is entitled to prompt reporting. In Third Division Award No. 30641, the Board held, with respect to the reporting of injuries:

This is not a situation where an incident occurred which was not necessarily recognizable as an injury until it later manifested itself. First of all, the Claimant was quite clear that he had injured his knee at the time that he did it., It "hurt", he said. Why he did not think it was serious, that is not his judgment to make. This is precisely why the Carrier has rules requiring prompt reporting. They are entitled to know when injuries occur, even if not serious, so they can make the judgment as to whether it requires medical attention and/or time off. They're entitled to make this judgment because they are usually the liable party if continued work activity aggravates the injury into something worse.