Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7863
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7659
 2-L&N-CM-' 79



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


Dis,~ute: 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 ox employes involved in this dispute axe 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.

On June 22, 1976, the claimant dropped his trousers, so-called "mooning", in front of a Carrier supervisor. The record reflects the claimant had engaged in this behavior previously and had been warned against any farther incidents. On June 23, the claimant answered roll call for someone other than himself. On that, the Carrier officials ,perplexed at this irrational behavior withheld the claimant from service pending physical and .psychiatric examination. An initial appointment was made with the company doctor on June 25 and an appointment was made with a .psychiatrist for July 2. The claimant was, however, not returned to service until August 16, It is noted the claimant was paid for vacation August g through August 13. Charges were filed on August 13, 1976, but following a conference on August 16, 197Ei
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 7863
 Docket No. 7659
 2-L&rr-CM-' 79

 in which claimant acknowledged his responsibility and signed a statement promising to conduct himself in a rational manner in the future, the charges were dropped.

 In this claim the Organization alleges that claimant's rights under the Discipline Rule were violated when he was suspended for examination by doctors without first being given a hearing. We are constrained to reject that argument. In our judgment this case does not present a discipline issue but rather an exercise of Carrier's well established right to withhold from service, pending examination, an employee whose physical or mental condition and ability to work without detriment to himself, fellow employees, Carrier and the public is placed in reasonable doubt. See Awards 2799 (Second) and 11909 (Third). In the facts of this case we find that Carrier had ample basis for reaching such a conclusion in light of claimant's irrational and aberrant behavior.

 Mary Awards however, while recognizing the above mentioned principle, also hold that the Carrier must exercise the right to examine an employee in a reasonably expeditious manner. These Awards indicate that a "reasonable time" in which to examine an employee and make known the results varies greatly, and must be fitted to the circumstances of each individual case. See Awards 5g74, 6278, 6331 and 6753 (Second); see also Third Division Awards 16606, 1823+, 18787, 19484, 21065, 21560.

 In this case, a total of 48 days, not including time paid for vacation, elapsed for the conduct of the examinat ion. Even allowing for the unique nature of the behavior involved and the fact that two doctors were utilized, we find that a reasonable time for completion of the examinations would have been July 15, 1876. Accordingly we shall sustain the claim for time lost for the period Ju7~y 16, 1876 to August 16, 1876. The claim for interest is denied.

 A W A R D

 Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the Findings.

NATIONAL RAIhROAD ADJUSTME-11\TT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 _,., ._ A

 ~~' ~ s ~,
 emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated ~ Chicago, IlIllinois, this 7th day of March., 1879.
 D , Y