Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12442
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 12219
 92-2-91-2-3
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

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

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Southern Railway Company violated the terms and conditions of the controlling Agreement, specifically Rules 58 and 34, when they failed to compensate Carman D. T. Johnson for the time (110 days) that they held him off from work after his doctor had released him to return to work.

 2. That accordingly, the Southern Railway Company now be ordered to provide relief in the amount of pay for one hundred and ten (110) days' pay at the regular Carman's rate; this includes all work days between September 5, 1989 and January 5, 1990.

 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.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.




Form 1 Award No. 12442
 Page 2 Docket No. 12219
 92-2-91-2-3
 September 6 -- After examination, Carrier '"r'`
 Medical Director advises Claimant he is medically
 disqualified from duty until his condition improves
 and he is re-examined.
 September 27 -- General Chairman writes to
 Carrier requesting Claimant's examination by a
 neutral doctor under Rule 58.
 October 25 -- Carrier denies use of Rule 58
 procedure as 'inappropriate' since there is 'no
 conflict of medical diagnoses'.
 November 4 -- General Chairman rejects Carrier
 response, stating that Claimant's physician 're
 leased him without restrictions.'
 November 10 -- Carrier acknowledges Organi
 zation position and offers to discuss case further.
 December 22 -- Medical Director advises Claim
 ant of receipt of information from Claimant as to
 his condition and schedules a further examination.
 December 28 -- Medical Director receives

 report of re-examination and advises Claimant he
 may return to work.
 January 4, 1990 -- General Chairman advises
 Carrier he has learned of Claimant's imminent
 return to work and states:
 "Therefore, upon Mr. Johnson's return to work,
 this dispute will be settled and I will close my
 file on same."
 January 5 -- Claimant returns to work.
 January 29 -- General Chairman initiates Claim
 for lost time owing to Carrier's failure to follow
 Rule 58 procedure:
 Rule 58 provides in pertinent part as follows:
 'When the organization desires to protest the
 removal of an employee from service because he has
 been physically or mentally disqualified by the
 Chief Surgeon, the case shall be handled in the
 following manner:
 Form 1 Award No. 12442
 Page 3 Docket No. 12219
 92-2-91-2-3
 (a) The General Chairman may file with the
 Director of Labor Relations a written protest of
 the disqualification . . . within thirty (30) days .
 . . . Should the medical findings of the employee's
 doctor conflict with those of the carrier's doctor,
 the management and the employee shall [arrange for
 examination by ,3 neutral doctor).
 (c) If the neutral doctor decides that the
 employe is fit to continue in service and properly
 perform the employee's normal duties, such neutral
 doctor shall also render a further opinion, as to
 whether such fitness existed at the time the em
 ployee was withheld from service. If the neutral
 doctor concludes that the employee possessed such
 fitness when withheld from service, the employee
 will be compensated for actual loss of normal
 earnings during the period withheld for each
 working day withheld from assignment and will not
 be deprived of any other contractual benefit to
 which he may be eligible."

 The Carrier argues that the Claim is barred from consideration by the Board, contending that the General Chairman's January 4, 1990 letter stated that "the dispute will be settled" upon the Claimant's return to work. The Carrier contends that the later Claim for pay is simply an attempt to reopen a closed matter. The Organization, however, points out that the only "settlement" was the need to have a neutral doctor sanction the Claimant's return to work. Since the Claimant did. return, the Organization contends that nothing further was required to achieve such return. The Organization further contends that the January 29, 1990 Claim was based on the Carrier's alleged Rule violation in failing to follow Rule 58 in the first place.

 The Board concludes that the Carrier has no convincing basis to argue that the matter has been fully resolved. As to the merits of the matter, the Board further does not agree with the Carrier that there was no "conflict" in the "medical findings" of the Claimant's doctor and the Carrier's Medical Director. Despite agreement on certain symptoms, the doctors obviously disagreed on the Claimant's capacity to perform his normal duties. This is the essence of Rule 58's purpose. The Carrier ignored this at its own peril. Rule 58 also provides for re=roactive pay in the event of specific findings by a neutral doctor. What such findings may have been cannot, of course, be determined now. However, failure of the Carrier to agree to the Rule 58 procedure requires a remedy and that requested in the Claim is appropriate.


Form 1 Award No. 12442
 Page 4 Docket No. 12219
 92-2-91-2-3
                            By Order of Second Division


Attest:
 Nancy J r - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of September 1992.