At the heart of this dispute is the question of whether Carrier unfairly delayed Claimant in his return to work following a disability. This is certainly not a case of first impression. (See, for example Second Division Awards 12472; 11275; 9369). A review of the facts shows that Claimant notified Carrier of his desire to return to service in early March 1996. Carrier had him examined by Carrier's own physician on March 13, 1996. As a result of that examination, Claimant was deemed unfit to return to work.
On April 12, 1996 the Organization, pursuant to Rule 35 of the Agreement between the Parties, requested a Board of Doctors to resolve the conflict between Claimant's physician and Carrier's medical personnel. Following several exchanges of correspondence on the matter, Carrier informed the Claimant that the requested Board of Doctors had been chosen and the examination would be held on July 1, 1996. On July 17, 1996 the Board issued its decision advising that Claimant should continue to be withheld from service, and the General Chairman was so advised by Carrier on July 18, 1996. Claimant was officially notified of Carrier's decision on July 30, 1996, and told that he was required to take further steps before returning to service. That letter read in pertinent part as follows:
On August 2, 1996, Claimant notified Carrier that he had enrolled in a physical therapy program for conditioning or an evaluation. He also stated that he would update the Carrier regarding his progress and the results of his program in the coming few weeks. By letter of August 14, 1996, the Organization again protested the Carrier's withholding of Claimant from service, contending that the job description upon which Form 1 Award No. 13378
the Carrier was basing its decision was inaccurate, unrealistic and outdated, and grosslly overstated the weight Claimant would be expected to lift. That protest was rejected toy Carrier's letter of August 16, 1996.
On September 9, 1996, Claimant notified Carrier of his successful completion of a physical therapy program, and enclosed his evaluation from that program. Claimant was examined by the Carrier's medical officer on September 27,1996, and was returned to service on October 7, 1996.
At the outset, the Organization has raised several procedural objections regarding Carrier's handling of this matter. The Organization filed simultaneous claims, all of which were processed with reasonable alacrity by Carrier. Moreover, the Organization has failed to prove - as it alleges -- that the incorrect Carrier officials responded to those claims. Thus, the Board finds no basis for accepting the Organization's position regarding possible procedural irregularities in this case.
With respect to the merits, Carrier was well within its rights to withhold Claimant from service pending medical approval to return to work. Carrier complied with the mandates of Rule 35 regarding convening of a Board of Doctors, and, although Claimant may not have been pleased with the outcome, there is no showing that theiir decision was based upon error. The Organization has alleged that an employee performing Claimant's job does not need to lift more than 50 pounds. Yet, according to his physical therapy evaluation, the Claimant himself told his physical therapist that the maximum weight he had to lift was 75-80 pounds.
Once Carrier's medical officer examined Claimant, he was returned to service ten days later. That does not appear to this Board to be an inordinate delay in his return to service. See also, Third Division Awards 31595 and 31824.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.