i 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6403



        The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when award was rendered.


                  ( System Federation No. 21, Railway Employ es'

                  ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.

Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

                  ( Southern Railway Company


Dispute: Claim of Employes:
            1. That under the current Agreement Carman Kenneth P. Boatman, Knoxville, Tennessee, was improperly held out of service beginning July 27, 1970 to November 17, 1970.


            2. That accordingly, the Southern Railway Company be ordered to reimburse Carman Kenneth P. Boatman for all time lost beginning July 27, 1970 to November 17, 1970.


Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and A the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers:and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe 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.

        Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.


Briefly summarized, the relevant dates reveal that claimant was off the job for approximately ten months. When lie returned on July 17, he was referred to the Carrier's doctor for examination wliich took place on July 22. The doctor referred the ease to the Carrier's Chief Surgeon for decision. On August 20, claimant was notified that he was not fit for work. A claim was filed by the Organization-on September 16. On October 31, claimant was referred for reexamination. He was returned to work on Yovember 17. The claim is made that employe should have been returned to service on July 27 and is therefore to be paid for time lost between July 27 and rdflvember 17.

 The material medical facts are that claimant was declared unfit because he w6ighed 300 pounds, more than 100 pounds above his normally allowed weight,and suffered from hypertension. On reexamination, he weighed 271 pounds, his blood pressure had been reduced. He w-,s directed to report for physical examinations
 ( ::h 30 days after his return to work. On April 2i, the following year, it was r orted that claimant was down to 227 pounds and his blood pressure was normal.
 Form 1 Page 2

Award No.6403

Docket No. 6231

2-SOU-CM-'72


        After reading numerous prior Awards of this Division, there is no -

question that Carrier had the right to require a physical examination before return
 ing the employe to work after an extended absence, and the Organization does~not
 contest this right. It is also well settled that this Board will not substitute
 its medical opinion for the expertise of qualified doctors. However, we may review
 the administrative procedures adopted to resolve the question.

 Prior Awards agree that a reasonable time for conducting a physicail.' _examination after the employe reports for work is approximately 5 days. Bearing in mind that the employe is losing pay each day that he waits for an answer,there should be no delay. If the examining doctor for the Carrier was uncertain, he should have said so right away. Instead, he referred the case to the Chief Surgeonand the employe was not notified until almost one month later that he was unfit for work,

 it is true that a Carrier's responsibility to the public safety requires caution in all areas of operation, including the physical well being of its employes. This-is stressed in.Carrier's dissent to Second Division Award No. 6207, citing United_States Supreme Court decisions and quoting Justice Hugo Black as to the function of this Board.

 In this case, the medical opinions revolved around the employe's vrei~ht,'and blood pressure. These fluctuated. When there was evidence that the emplatie

 had done-something about losing weight, he was returned to work.- At that tL^in, he had lost 29 pounds and his blood pressure had dropped. The record before us does: not disclose when the reexamination took place bets-reen October 31 and Yovember 17. We don't :hncrj exactly when, between the first examination on July 22. and the second

 exanination in November, the eamloye succeeded in losing 21 pounds and.the blood -.
 pressure dropped.

 The delay by the Carrier's medical staff leaves . a gap in time that tie will try to correct. It is within our authority to exercise reasonable judgment. We be-lieve that the ei!ploye could have lost 29 pounds, and apparently his blood pressure dropped. with the weight loss, been reexamined and returned to work by October 1. This could hatre been accomplished if he was told promptly after the first exat ination to lose-weight and report for reexamination every 30 days until an acceptable weight level and blood pressure could have been achieved.

 Accordingly, the employe should be paid his pro rata rate for work days lost from and irclsadRng October 1, to the date of his return on November 17.

 A W A R D

 Claim, swtained to the extent stated .:.hove.

 Attest: ' f'
 Ex_ecutW ·e Secretary

 Dated at Chicago., Illinois., this 16th day of November, 1972.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division