Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8610
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8179
 2-CRI&P-CM-'81
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Kay McMurray when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada

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.

Claimant, Mr. Haire, was removed from service with the Carrier on January 28, 1978 pending review of his medical qualifications to perform on the job. The removal was occasioned by supervisory observation of erratic behavior including disorientation as to location and periods of disappearance. The provisions of Supplement V of the Agreement were utilized by the parties to process this medical problem to its ultimate conclusion which was return to service on August 5, 1978.

 The Organization now contends that Claimant was unjustly removed from service on January 28, 1978 and should be paid for time lost as a result of the medical procedure. It points out that there is no specific provision in Supplement V for removal from service.


Form 1 _ Award No. 8610
 Page 2 Docket No. 8179
 2-CRI&P-CM-'81
 "(1) - When, at any time while in service, causes unknown,
 it is apparent to the representative of the employes or the
 representative of the Carrier that an employe is becoming
 unsafe and liable to cause injury to himself or fellow
 employes or cause liability to the Carrier."

 In the case under consideration, the Carrier did determine that grievant was unsafe and liable to cause injury to himself and possibly others. It was necessary that some action be taken. One can readily visualize the liability which might accrue if no action was taken and the Carrier's concerns were realized. obviously, the purpose of the examination is to determine the employee's fitness for work and some judgment must be made before the employee can be returned to work. Supplement V of the Agreement provides the process through which that determination is to be made and that course was followed. While there is no specific statement that the
 man can be removed from service the implication that such is the case is strong.It
 is doubtful that the Organization would ask that a sick man be kept on the job.
 The Carrier has a strong responsibility to its operations and other employees to
 assure that the workman is medically capable of performing his duties. We conclude
 that under the circumstances the Carrier did not violate any rules by removing
 Claimant from service.

 The record reveals that Mr. Haire first saw his own physician who reported that a physical examination revealed no reason why Claimant should not return to work. However, the case under consideration involved emotional or psychological problems. After a discussion with the Company doctor, Claimant's physician concurred that in view of his client's behavior a pyschiatric evaluation might be advisable before he returned to work around moving trains.

 Claimant was granted a medical leave of absence for the duration of the medical evaluation in accordance with Supplement V.

 The psychological testing and evaluation were completed and reviewed by the Carrier Medical Officer on April 7, 1978. That report, which the Carrier accepted, suggested that grievant be returned to work with a proviso that he seek medical assistance for his problem while he continued to work. On April 10, three days after receipt of the evaluation, the Carrier notified Mr. Haire that he would be returned to work if he would agree to continue treatment on the job as outlined by the medical reports. Claimant refused to accept the conditions. Consequently, further provisions of the contract were triggered which required the evaluation of a third physician. For reasons beyond the control of either party, the selection process and acceptance of the assignment by a third doctor consumed some period of time. Eventually the examination by the third doctor was completed and Claimant was returned to service on August 5, 1978.

 Medical problems, especially one of the nature here encountered, are beyond the expertise of lay boards and do not lend themselves easily to the grievance process. That is the reason the parties agreed upon Supplement V as a procedure for their resolution. Our review is confined to a determination regarding the application of contractual commitments and their reasonable implementation.
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 8610
 Docket No. 8179
 2-CRI&P-CM-'81

 In the case under consideration we have ruled that removal from service under the conditions was reasonable. That removal was shortly changed to a leave of absence in accordance with Supplement V which is desiW ed to handle such matters. The contractual provisions were followed in processing this matter. It is regrettable that the process was time consuming although it is not unusual when dealing with the medical profession. It should be noted that Claimant could have returned to work earlier but chose to follow the contract to its ultimate conclusion.

 In view of the foregoing and the entire record we find that the contract was not violated.

 A W A R D

 Claim.denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By -.u '__>,-z..~ _ t..c-% , )~_ %~. /~
 osemarie Brasch.- Administrative Assistant