Form 1 NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8795
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8669
2-SPr-EW-'81
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James F. Scearce when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
That the Southern Pacific Company (Texas and Louisiana Lines) unjustly
withheld Electrician W. W. Lane from service on June 4,
1979.
2. That accordingly the Southern Pacific Company (Texas and Louisiana Lines)
be ordered to compensate Electrician W. W. Lane in the amount of eight
(8)
hours pay for June 4,
1979,
at the pro-rata rate which was one of his
regular assigned work days
Findings
The Second Division of the Adju.3tment 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The dispute in this case centers around the Carrier's reaction to a doctor's
statement presented by the Claimant upon his return to duty. The Claimant had
earlier indicated the need to see a doctor which would cause his absence on June 1,
1979;
he was advised of the need to submit proof of release to return to duty. On
June 4 he did so; the doctor's statement advised that:
"Mr. Wayne Lane is under my dermatological care. He has
'Contact Dermatitis', secondary to the primary irritants
being oil and harsh solvents at work. My recommendations
for his relief include the use of cotton gloves under
special rubber gloves if he must continue to work under
these circumstances."
Instead of permitting the Claimant to go to work, his foreman advised of the need
for hi to see the Plant Manager the following day and he was thereafter sent home;
the following day he was allowed to return to duty. According to the Carrier, the
delay was necessary to permit the Chief Medical officer to determine if the
restrictions set out in the Claimant's attending physician's statements were
compatible with his work environment. The Organization takes the position that the
Claimant met his obligation by presenting the release on June 4 and, as such, the
Form 1 Award No.
8795
Page 2 Docket No.
8669
2-SPr-EW-'81
refusal by the Carrier to permit him to work on ttat date was in error, and is
properly compensable as a result. The Carrier asserts the doctor's statement was not
a full release to duty and, as such, was properly referred to its own medical officer
for review.
We find no error on the Carrier's part. The Claimant's doctor qualified his
return to duty on "the use of cotton gloves under special rubber gloves..." It is
beyond the scope of understanding of a practicing physician to know the conditions
under which employees in various jobs must work; that is the unique province of
industrial medical officers. For example, it might have been beyond the Claimant's
practical ability to perform the necessary elements of his job with the protective
items recommended by his physician; that was the Medical Officer's decision to make
and ;t may well have been in the Claima'nt's own interest and safety to delay a return
to duty, pending such review. We consider the Carrier's delay in returning the
Claiiiant a prudent decision within its authority and not violative of applicable
provisions of the Agreement.
A W A R D
Claim is denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
AtteA : Executive Secretary rllr"
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By _
semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Date([ at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of October,
1981.