Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOA-RD Award No. 7247
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7033
 2-SC L-CM- t 77



Parties to Disrzte: ( (Carmen)
 (
 ( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:




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, 1934.

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

This claim is the result of the alleged delay on the part of Carrier in allowing claimant to return to work following off duty injury, the delay being the time required for the Carrier's Chief Medical Officer to examine claimant and advise of his fitness for duty. The original claim also covered expenses incurred b5- claimant in travelling from Portsmouth, Va., his-place of employment, to iacksonvilL_e, Fla., the location of the office of the Chief Medical officer, and return. The expense portion of the claim was settled on the property and :_s not before the Board. The claim is for five (5) days compensation at the pro rata rate for August 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, 1974, which is the amount of time that elapsed between claimant being notified to retort to Chief Medical Office for examination on August 19 and notification by the Chief Medical Officer to Shop Superintendent's office that claimant could return to work.

 The record shows that claimant furnished the Shop Superintendent's office the reauired release from his personal physician on August 13, 1974, which was read to the Carrier's Medical Department, located in Jacksonville, Fla., by the Shop Superintendent over the telephone the same day. On Augast
 Form 1 Award No. 7247
 Page 2 Docket No. 7033
 2-SCh-CM-'77

 15, 1974, the Chief Medical Officer advised the Shop Superintendent that he wanted to examine the claimant: and directed that he report to his office in Richmond on August 19, 1974 for examination. On August 20, 1974, the Medical Department notified the Shop ;superintendent that claimant could return to work. Claimant resumed his duties on August 22, 1974, August 20 and 21 being the rest days of claimant's regular position.

 Petitioner alleges that the foregoing represents a delay in carrier returning claimant to his pos:_tion of twelve days and that such delay was arbitrary and placed an undue burden upon claimant. (Page 5 of Employee's Submission to Board)

 While it is true that claimant notified his Superintendent, oh August 8, 1974, while still on leave of absence, that his doctor was going to release him it was not until August 13, 1974, that claimant presented the required medical report to the carrier. The period between August 8 and 13, was, obviously, chargeable against claimant.

 The only question to be answered by the Board, therefore, is whether the period between August 13 and August 20 was an unreasonable amount of time for the carrier to make its determination. The claim is actually for 8 hours pay for August 15, 16, 17, and 18 and for time and one half pay for August 19 since claimant travelled to Richmond and was examined on the 19th which was his scheduled rest clay. (Carrier Exhibit "B" 1)

 There is in effect on this property an Agreement (Mediation Agreement - Case A-9106), effective February 1, 1973, which deals specifically with the question of physical fitness of this Carrier's employees. Item 2, thereof, states as follows:









The Carrier has asserted that nothing in the foregoing language limits . the time within which the Carrier may be expected to determine an employee's physical condition except that such determination shall be made "within a reasonable period." This reference to a reasonable period of time is not unique to this Agreement for it is a phraseology appearing in countless
 Form 1 Award No. 7247
 Page 3 Docket No. 7033
 2-SCL-CM-177

 Agreements in the railroad industry and has been the subject of numerous Awards by this Board as to what constitutes a "reasonable period." The Carrier further points to the phrase "each case shall be determined on its own merits" as a recognition that some cases may require longer or shorter periods of time to reach a determination.

 There is no question that the Carrier has the right to require its employees to submit themselves for physical examination before returning them to duty, and the Petitioner has not challenged that right in this case. We have examined al" of the Awards submitted by the parties in support of their respective positions, each such Award treating in part with the question of what should be considered a reasonable period of time within which an employee should be cleared for service b y a carrier's Medical Department. In those cases, with the exception of a few that contained factors of a major departure from the basic issue herein, we found that the vast majority of the Awards subscribed to the principle that five (5) days represented a reasonable period of time within which a medical determination ought to be made by a carrier's examining physician. Nothing in the record before us indicates the presence of unusual circumstances; on the contrary the record shows that claimant was cleared for return to duty the day following his examination. "We therefore see no reason to depart from the general principle referred to above, although we would be remiss in not acknowledging the fact that a consideration of the merits of many other cases could, and probably would, make the application of the five day principle totally inapplicable under different circumstances.

 In the light of the foregoing it is our conclusion that "a reasonable period" within which the Medical Department could have arranged for the subject examination and made its determination should have been made within five (5) days of August 13, 1974, the date the claimant first returned for service, and August 18, 1974. We will therefore sustain the claim for one (1) eight hour day at the pro rata rate of his regular assignment.
a review of the Board's prior considerations on the matter of what constitutes
 a reasonable period of time: .-




rate of claimant's regular assignment.
 NATIONAL P,A=OAD A-DJUSTIEUT BOARD
 B y Order oz Second Division
 Attest: Executive Secretary
 7ational RailroadBoazl

 emar-;a 3rasch dmir.-strat-ive Assistant
 Dated Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of March, 1977.