Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10340
 SECOND DIVISION Locket No. 10500
 2-EW-MNCR-185
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee James R. Cox when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current Agreement, the Consolidated Rail Corporation
 (Conrail) unjustly dismissed Lineman W. Karabinos from service effective
 November 18, 1982.
 2. That accordingly, the Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company be ordered to
 restore Lineman W. Karabinos to service with seniority unimpaired and
 with all pay due him from the first day he was held out of service until
 the day he is returned to service, at the applicable Lineman's rate of
 pay for each day he has been improperly held from service; and with a11.
 benefits due him under the group hospital and life insurance policies for
 the aforementioned period; and all railroad retirement benefits due him,
 including unemployment and sickness benefits for the aforementioned
 period; and all vacation and holiday benefits due him under the current
 vacation and holiday agreements for the aforementioned period; and all
 other benefits that would normally have accrued to him had he been
 working in the aforementioned period in order to make him whole; and
 expunge his-record.
 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 employes 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.


Following his termination for unauthorized and deliberate misuse of Company property on December 21, 1981, and after the intervention of the Union, Claimant Karabinos, a Lineman employed by the Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company, was unilaterally offered reinstatement to Service subject to "our medical department's approval" and directed to report for a medical examination prior to returning to work. The evidence does not show any acceptance by either the organization or the employe of the Carrier's offer of leniency nor agreement by Claimant to return.
The evidence indicates that Karabinos did report to the Carrier June 4, 1982 but refused an order to go to a Company Doctor for a return to work physical since= he was "not ready to go back to work" because he wanted.to get his insurance "straightened out first".
 Form 1 Award No. 10340
 Page 2 Locket No. 10500
 - 2-MNCR-EW-185
Claimant left the office and did not return. Following a trial, he was terminated for insubordination due to his refusal June 4, 1982 to obey an order to report to the Doctor for a physical examination, and for being absent without authorization from June 5, 1982 to June 18, 1982.
Since the record does not clearly show that the order to take the return to work physical was directed to Claimant after there had been acceptance of the offer to reinstate, the Board cannot find that Carrier had a basis to terminate for insubordination. The evidence did not show that Claimant, as of June 4, 1982, had been returned to Service. Due to these circumstances, the Carrier is to reinstate their offer of April, 1982 on the same terms and conditions including the requirement that Claimant establish that he is physically fit to return to work.





                          By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. ~r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of March 1985.