PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western
 Lines)
 STATEMENT That the Carrier's decision to assess
 OF CLAIM Claimant, A. V. Reyes forty-five (45) demerits
 was excessive, unduly harsh and in abuse of
 discretion, and in violation of the terms and
 provisions of the current Collective
 Bargaining Agreement.
 That because of the Carrier's failure to prove
 and support the charges by introduction of
 substantial bona fide evidence, that Carrier
 now be required to remove the demerits
 assessed and clear his personal record of the
 charges placed thereon.
 FINDINGS



Regulations for the Maintenance of Way and Structures of the
 Southern Pacific Transportation company. The charges resulted
 from his alleged failure to report an injury in a timely manner.
 The injury occurred while the Claimant was working as a Ballast __,
 Operator on Surfacing Gang S-11. The portion of thee rules
 allegedly violated include:

      Rule E: Accidents, personal injuries . . . .must be reported by the first means of cummunication. Written report must follow promptly when required . . . . Rule 607: CONDUCT: Employes must not be: (4) dishonest; . . . . Rule 806: REPORTING:

All cases of personal injury, while on duty, or on company property must be promptly reported to proper officer on prescribed form. From the evidence prsented at the hearing, the Carrierdetermined the Claimant had been late in reporting his injury in violation of Rules E and 806. His record was assessed 45 demerits. According to the Claimant's testimony, he was putting gravel in between the tracks on August 15, 1989, when he noticed a piece of angle bar in the ballast. He got off the machine, picked up the bar and threw it away from the track. He said at that time, he felt a pain like air- rushing through his back, but thought it was a temporary thing and would go away. He subsequently told his foreman he wanted to be sure to get off work on time because his back was hurting and he wanted to get to his doctor. However, he did not tell his foreman he had hurt

                            2

his back while on duty.
 The next day, he went to a chiropractor, who, after taking x-rays, told the Claimant he had a pinched nerve probably resulting from something he had done at work. The day after that, the Claimant reported the injury as an on-the-job injury.
 It is not unusual for injuries to occur, but go relatively unnoticed. For one thing, there are many instances where one feels an immediate pain without suffering a lasting injury. In other instances, an injury occurs, but does not become painful until sometime later when inflamation sets in or the muscles become tight. For these reasons, the Board finds the Claimant's testimony to be credible and if this were the,first time he had experienced such a dilemma, we would probably be quick to point out these facts and dismiss any discipline issued to the Claimant. Here, however, we have an employe who has been issued demerits in the past for not reporting his injury in a timely manner. He must keep in. mind the importance of reporting any possible injuries before he leaves work for -the day. Otherwise, the Carrier loses its protection by being uncertain whether, or not the claimed injury occurred on the property or while the employe was on his own time. The demerits issued in this case are not so severe as to put the employe, who is obviously a good - employe, in any serious jeopardy. Therefore, under all circumstances, the forty-five demerits is reasonable.

 3
                          AWARD


The claim is denied.

                          V


                            Ca~0l J. Zamperini Neutral


Submitted:

 January 25, 1990 -
 Denver, Colorado

 4