Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


                      ( Norfolk and Western Railway Company


        Dispute: Claim of Employes:


              1. That under the Current Working Agreement Carman Jerry Lang was unjustly disqualified from service of the Carrier on December 13, 1971.


              2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to return Carman Jerry Lang to service.


        Findings:


        The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all 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, 193+.


        This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


        Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


        Claimant Jerry Lang was employed by Carrier at Brewster, Ohio, a point on the former Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway Company, as a carman in the Car Department. Mr. Lang has been employed by Carrier since 1960, except for periods of service in the armed forces. On July 26, 1971, while off duty, Mr. Lang was involved in an automobile accident which resulted in almost total loss of sight in his left eye.


Following a period of convalescence, Mr. Lang in December 1971 sought to return to duty with the Carrier. On December 13, 1971, the Carrier's Regional Medical Director disqualified him for all service. In April 1972, exception was taken to this decision by the Organization on behalf of claimant and a grievance was filed requesting his return to service or in the alternative invoking the provisions of Adendum "G" (sic) and Rule 11 of the Agreement. The cited Agreement provisions read as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 0701
 Dame 2 Locket No. 0575
 2-iu&TNi-Ci2-74 ~,; .

                        Addendum H


        "Whenever, as a result of a Company doctor's report, the Company withholds from service any employee to whom either of these agreements applies, that employee, if he so desires, may undergo a second examination by another doctor of his own choosing, to verify the diagnosis of the Company doctor. When such an employee makes written request upon the Company, and the Company finds that the doctor whom the employee wants to visit for check diagnosis is reputable and qualified to investigate the employee's condition, the Company will give written permission to

      - the employee to visit such doctor and will pay the

      doctor's fee for such confirmatory examination and

      diagnosis. If the diagnosis of the Company doctor and that

      of a second reputable and qualified doctor do not agree,

      the employee will be =squired to 7n sit a mutually-satisfactory

      medical clinic for complete examination and diagnosis.

      The Company will bear the reasonable expense, including the

      medical fees, of such visit to the clinic. The diagnosis

      reported by the clinic shall be considered final as to

      the condition of the employee at the time of examination."


                        Rule 7I

                              . ,_


                      "FAITHFUL SERVICE


        When employes under retirement age have rendered long and faithful service to the Company, and have become permanently incapacitated to such an extent that they are unable to physically fulfill the requirements of their position, they shall be given displacement rights to other work in accordance with these rules."


Carrier declined to reinstate Claimant but, upon being apprised of the name of Claimant's physician, Carrier arranged for the selection of the neutral doctor under Addendum H. Also, on June 27, 1972, Carrier declined to permit Claimant to exercize displacement rights under Rule 11 stating that in the opinion of Carrier there is no carman job which he could safely perform without hazard to himself and/or his fellow workers. Subsequently, Carrier informed Claimant that in the opinion of the neutral medical examiner selected under the provisions of kddendum, H he should remain disqualified from service with the Carrier. It should be noted that Carrier has not submitted in evidence at any time the medical reports of the neutral doctor, Dr. James Meyer, upon which it relied when it disqualified Claimant.
 i~ Form 1 Award No. 6761
 Page 3 Docket No. 6575
 2-I\T&W-CI1I- r 74
 The Organization on behalf of Claimant argues that Mr. Lang was
 wrongfully disqualified in the first instance, that Addendum H has
 not been complied with by Carrier because of its failure to reveal
 the neutral medical report to Claimant and, finally that Rule ?1
 provides Claimant displacement rights which Carrier has wrongfully
 prevented him from exercising.
 Carrier maintains that it has the inherent right to exclude from
 employment those who do not meet its physical standards and who will.
 be hazardous to themselves and others. Moreover, Carrier asserts
 that the requirements of Addendum H are rendered nugatory herein because
 both Claimant's doctor and the Carrier's doctor agreed that Claimant
 had lost nearly all the sight in his left eye. Finally, Carrier
 insists that there is no job in the Carmen Craft which Claimant can
 perform safely.
 Close examination of the record herein indicates, contrary to the
 contention of Carrier, that the doctors of Claimant and Carrier were
 not in agreement regarding his continuing ability to perform service
 for the Carrier. Claimant's doctor, while conceding his impaired
 peripheral and distance vision in the left eye, concluded that aside
 s from this damage Claimant could perform "any task anyone else can".
 y There is no neutral testimony or evidence on the record to refute this
 conclusion, since Carrier has not submitted in evidence the report of
 the neutral doctor upon which it purportedly based its disqualification
 decision. See Award 3872. In these circumstances we are of the
 opinion that the facts do not support Carrier's total disqualification
 of Claimant from all service.
 As noted supra, Rule 11 of the Agreements grants permanently
 incapacitated employees who have rendered long and faithful service
 displacements rights t o other work in accordance with the Agreement
 rules. Claimant, with 11 years of service clearly qualifies for the
 opportunity to prove himself capable of continuing employment under
 this rule. As we have noted in another similar context, such a rule
 does not require Carrier to create a position solely with duties which
 such an employee can perform, but it does obligate Carrier to give him
 displacements rights to other work in accordance with these rules.
 See Award 1711. We have reviewed the Carmen's classification of work
 rule, Rule 64, and at least some of the work described therein appears
 to us to be within the capability of a carman with impaired vision in
 one eye. See Award 6561.
 In all of the circumstances herein, we are of the opinion that
 Carrier's decision to disqualify Claimant totally from all service
 is not adequately supported on this record by substantial evidence.
 ~`Specifically, we find that Carrier violated Rule 11 by refusing to
 give Claimant displacements rights to work other than his prior
 V~-'/ position, in accordance with the rules of the Agreement. Accordingly,
 we will sustain the claim and direct Carrier to grant Claimant
 displacement rights in accordance with Rule 11.
 Form 1
 Page 4

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 Award No. 6761
 Docket No. 6575
 2-N&W-CM-' 74 ,,AO'

 A W A R D
Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the Findings.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Ro emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of September, 1974.