Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11827
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11664
 90-2-88-2-173
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen/Division of TCU PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Pacific Fruit Express Company violated the controlling agreement, particularly Rules 19, 20, 21 and 37, when Carman A. A. Vega was recalled to service on December 11, 1986, but was not permitted to begin work until January 19, 1987.

 2. That accordingly, the Pacific Fruit Express Company be ordered to compensate Carman Vega for all work days lost beginning on the date of December 11, 1986 to January 19, 1987, Tucson, Arizona.

 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.

Claimant, a Carmen Welder, was furloughed by Carrier on July 29, 1985. On December 11, 1986 he was mailed a recall notice. Claimant responded on December 18, 1986. Inasmuch as he had been furloughed for over twelve months he was required to undergo an extensive medical examination before being allowed to return to service. Upon completion of the examination, by Industrial Health Services at Claimant's work location, Tucson, Arizona, his Medical Form (CS-2946-A) was sent to Carrier's Chief Medical Officer in Roseville, California, for review and approval. Upon receipt there, it was noted that Claimant had not signed the form. It was returned to Claimant for his signature. On January 12, 1987, Claimant signed the form and returned it to Carrier. It was received by the Chief Medical Officer on January 16, 1987. That same day Claimant was advised, by phone, that he was medically approved for return to service, which he did on January 19, 1987.
 Form 1 Award No. 11827
 Page 2 Docket No. 11664
 90-2-88-2-173
Carrier improperly delayed his return. From the facts of record it is clear
 that any delay in Claimant's return was caused by his failure to sign the
 medical form he completed at the time of his examination. The signature part
 of the medical form contains certain standard release language, which is not
 unusual in such situations. Requiring that an individual's signature be af
 fixed on his medical examination form before authorizing a return to duty is
 not, in and of itself, an inordinate requirement, nor would it be inappropri
 ate conduct on the part of Carrier officials.

 It is clear that any delay which may have occurred in returning Claimant to duty was the result of his failure to sign his medical form and was not caused by dilatory action on the part of Carrier. The Claim will be denied.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest:
                                                          low

      'Nancy J. r Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of March 1990.