Form 1 Award No. 7131
 ' Docket No. 6934
 2-T&P-CM-t76
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Joseph A. Sickles when award was rendered.
 ( System Federation No. 121, Railway Employee'
 Parties to Dispute: ~ Department, A.F.L.-C.I.O.
 ( (Careen)

Dispute: Claim of Em,zloves:






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

 The carrier or carriers and the employs or employee involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and eikploye 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 waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 Claimant had been out of service due to an illness and gallbladder surgery. On Nay 20, 1974, he reported for duty with a release from his personal physicians which stated that he was able to return to work on that date, and a local Company physician who examined him on May 20, also found him physically fit to return to duty. Thereafter, the medical reports were forwarded to Carrier's Chief Medical Officer in another city.
ment on May 28, 1974, and Claimant returned to duty on May 30, 1974.'
 Form I Award No. 7131
 ;~ 2 Docket No. 6934
 2-T&P-CM-'76

 '°.'?.aint relied upon ;.ivcolnD3·yision Acrd 6704 (involving ~~=s '~` .`a°°~ ~: _ v .aVA"ttd a e1v 1u~ seeping reimbursement for the period Icy 25 through try 29, including premium pay for May 27 - a holiday.

 At this stage of the development of the law on this topic, it is hardly open tG question that a Carrier has a right to assure that an employee who 1,ias been physically afflicted is properly qualified to retnr.- ~y ;~,~_=~.~ ,:.c- e1;. ~~ raed the Organization's contentiGvx :~ ~~..~.;~.a_..~;~ :.3a~,Cv:1cBPL. It is equally clear that a Carrier can reasonably delay a return to service so as to obtain the judgment of its own thief Medical Officer.

 Although the Claimant asserts that he was capable of re turning to work on May 20, 1974, he seeks pay from May 25; which computation is based upon the conclusions of Award 6704 which stated, in essence that in a case where a personal physician and a local Carrier physician concurred in the recommendation to return an employee to duty, and those recommendations w~_re forwarded to Carrier's Chief Medical Officer; acid officer must act within a reasonable time, and five days was such a reasonable time.



nonetheless, inasmuch as Award 6704 resolved a dispute between this Carrier and a shop craft employees its conclusions should control, absent a compelling reason to the contrary, or a showing of a significant factual divergence.

 As noted, the Claimant's presentation of the matter on the property clearly shows that his claim is based upon Award 6704. Although the record ekes repeated reference to "5 days" during which administrative procedures should be completed, we do not read Award 6704 to be as restrictive as the claim suggests. In that dispute, the personal physician and a Company physician concluded, on March 13, 1972, that the Claimant therein was able to return to work. The Award states that Carrier was obligated to make its determination"...within 5 days of March 13, the date he returned to service, or by March 18, 1972. Since Carrier failed to do so, we will allow the claim for the period March 19,..." (underscoring supplied). Thus, for purposes of consistency, the claim period should commence on May 26, 1974, rather than try 25.
 Form 1 Award No. 7131
 Page 3 Docket No. 6934
 2-T&PTCM-' 76

 The record is clear that the final two (R) days of the claim period, i.e., Nay 28, and May 29, were Claimant's rest days and we find no justification for reimbursement concerning those days. Although the record supports a conclusion that Claimant, if he had been returned to service pursuant to this Award, would have been compensated at the pro rate rate for the holiday (May 27, 1974), no basis has been presented for this Board to conclude that he mould have been entitled to any punitive pay for that day. Accordingly, we will sustain the claim to the extent of reimbursement at the pro-data rate for May .26; and May 27, 1974.

Claim sustained concerning Nay 26, and 27, 1974, as stated in Findings, above.
                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 _ J
 Rosemarie Branch - Administrative A sistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of September, 197b.
    CARRIER trlEIBERS t DISSENT AND CONCURRING OPINION TO AWARD 7131

    DOCKET 6934, REFEREE SICKLES


Matters of record discussed in the memorandum submitted to the Referee by the Carrier Members indicated that this entire claim was invalid; we, therefore dissent to that portion of the award which sustains part of the claim.

~~' ~<~,