Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12357
 _ SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 12379
 92-3-91-2-172
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Donald E. Prover when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE :
 (Soo Line Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM :

 1. That the Soo Line Railroad Company violated the current agreement when it unjustly and unfairly suspended Electrician Dean D. Dueppen from service for five (5) days on May 21, 1990.

 2. That the Soo Line Railroad Company be ordered to compensate Electrician Dean D. Dueppen for all lost wages and benefits and clearing 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.

The Claimant was employed as an Electrician by the Carrier at Bensenville, Illinois. One of Claimant's duties was to throw switches on the West end of the diesel house to let engines in and out of the house. The Claimant had been performing this duty at least since October 1, 1989, even though he was working under a physical restriction placed on him by his personal physician. On March 26, 1990, the Claimant informed-the Manager of Locomotive Services, that he no longer could handle the switches because of a lifting restriction to his back:. Under date of March 27, 1990, his Supervisor addressed a letter to the Claimant reading, as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 12357
 Page 2 Docket No. 12379
 92-3-91-2-172
 "Per our conversation March 26, 1990, concerning the
 lifting restriction placed on you by your personal
 doctor, I do need an update of this restriction for
 the company's records, on or before April 13, 1990."
 The Claimant did not comply with his Supervisor's request by April
 13, 1990. Under date of April 23, 1990, the Claimant was notified to attend a
 formal Hearing. Claimant was charged with alleged insubordination. Under
 date of May 15, 1990, the Claimant was notified he was assessed a five day
 actual suspension for failure to comply with instructions.

 The Carrier argues that the evidence supports the finding of responsibility, that the discipline assessed was not capricious, excessive or arbitrary and that it was the Claimant's own financial irresponsibility which kept him from complying with Mr. Hunt's directions.

 The Employees argue that the Claimant did not receive a fair and impartial Hearing. We have reviewed the Hearing testimony and find no basis for the Employees argument. The Hearing Officer brought out all pertinent facts and Claimant and his representative were given every opportunity to question witnesses. At the Hearing the Claimant testified that he was unable to comply with Carrier's request because his personal doctor would not furnish any information until an overdue bill was paid. The Claimant did not explain at the Hearing why the bill was not paid, therefore, the Board assumes it was not because of hardship reasons but rather was not paid for some other reason. Inasmuch as the restriction was placed on the Claimant by his personal doctor we believe that Carrier's request under the circumstances was reasonable and warranted and that the Claimant's inability to comply was brought about by his own inactions, i.e., failure to pay his doctor's bill.

 It is our conclusion that Carrier's action in suspending the Claimant was justified and was not capricious, excessive or arbitrary. Accordingly we will not disturb the discipline assessed in this case.






Attest:
        Nancy ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of June 1992.