Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
9097
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9191
2 -B8c0-MA-' 82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
Parties to Dispute: ( Aerospace Workers
(
( Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company ordered Machinist Helper D. E.
Welch, Cumberland Locomotive Shops, Cumberland, Maryland, to present
himself to the Carrier's physician, at Baltimore, Maryland, for a
physical examination on July 11,
1979,
his scheduled work day.
2. Accordingly, Machinist Helper D. E. Welch should be compensated for
one (I) day's pay, at the pro-rata rate of pay, for July 11,
1979.
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,
193+.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant, a Machinist Helper at the Carrier's Cumberland Locomotive Shops,
was instructed to report to the Carrier's physician at Baltimore, Maryland for
a physical examination. The examination was originally set for July
5, 1979 ($
rest day for Claimant) but was rescheduled, at Claimant's request, for July 11,
1979
which was a work day. Claimant seeks eight hours of pay for missing one
day of work in order to comply with the Carrier's directive.
The Carrier asserts that it could reasonably order the physical examination
since Claimant had been absent at an abnormally high rate during the first five
months of
1979.
While the Organization does not directly contest the Carrier's
right to insist on physical examination, the organization argues that it was
inherently unfair to require Claimant to travel to Baltimore. If the examination
had been conducted in Cumberland, Claimant would not have lost a full day's pay.
Lastly, the Carrier submits that the Organization has not pointed out any rule in
the applicable agreement which gives Claimant a right to compensation for the
time he spent undergoing the physical examination.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9097
Docket No. 9191
2-B&O-MA-'82
On the property, the Organization failed to cite any rule which the Carrier
violated. The Organization bears the burden of proving each element of its claim.
A crucial part of a claim is to specify, on the property, a contract term which
was allegedly breached. Second Division Awards Nos. 720 (McBrearty) and
8302
(Roukis). In its submission to this Board, the Organization did allude to
Rule 32 of the applicable agreement which concerns disciplinary procedure.
However, the Organization neither explained the relevance of Rule 32 nor why it
was not raised on property. Absent a citation to an agreement provision which
could arguably prohibit the Carrier from ordering Claimant to submit to a physical
examination (without pay) under the circumstances presented in this record, we must
dismiss the claim. Second Division Award No. 8325 (Dennis).
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
.rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Datd at hicago, Illinois, this 19th day of May, 1982.