Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7867
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7797
 2-SLSF-CM-'79



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


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 employs or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employs 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 September 23, 176, Claimant was on his second rest day. He telephoned his supervisor to obtain permission to be off duty the following day to see a doctor. Permission -was granted, but the Claimant eras told to bring a doctor's statement with him upon his return to work. Claimant reported for work on September 25, 1676, but without and note from his doctor. He was withheld from service until he produced a doctor's staterient and was then ,permitted to return to work.
 Form 1 Award No. 7867
 Page 2 Docket No. 7797
 2-SLSF-CM-'79

 The record on the property shows some disagreement concerning what was requested of the Claimant. According to the Carriers Claimant had advised in the telephone conversation of September 23 that he had sprained his ankle. (The previous year, the Claimant had suffered a fractured. right leg and had necessarily lost considerable time from work because of this.) The carrier's position is that, in view of the medical history, Claimant was simply advised to bring in a note from his doctor that, following an ankle sprain, it was proper for Claimant to resume work.

 The Organization denies that Claimant referred to a sprained ankle in the report-off call; that on previous occasions Claimant had requested and obtained .permission to be off to see a doctor without being required to bring in a doctor`s statement; and that Claimant was being asked to verify his reason for absence of one day, according to the Organization an improper procedure for the Carrier to follow.

 The Board finds it of no materiality whether the Claimant understood that he was to bring to his supervisor a verification that he had visited the doctor or a medical statement that he was able to work. The point is that he did neither until some later time when he was, in fact, permitted to return to duty. Further, he did obtain a statement from his doctor dated Septeirber 30, 1976 yet he did not offer it to the Carrier until October 22 (following which he was restored to duty).

 If the Carrier's direction to provide a physician's statement was considered to be improper it could easily have been complied with and thereafter made the subject of a dispute. i,or is there evidence that the Carrier withheld the Claimant f~^o!n service as a disciplinary matter; rather his return awaited compliance with the Carrier's order to provide medical documentation.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

    ,n__we,·a


By ~ r: ~f' ~°' .,,~ ~ .,. . ._. '^,- '
                                    'L-. i`·

      os~narie Brasch - P.dmlnistrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 7th day of March, 1979.