From the on-property handling it is Carrier's position, supported by a statement from Claimant's Supervisor (that is unrefuted), that on February 27, 1997, during the morning line-up, Claimant was assigned to do a 92 day federal inspection on a locomotive. After the line-up, Claimant approached his Supervisor stating he would not be able to perform all the duties required in the inspection process. This was due to a back injury that occurred in a traffic accident several years ago and has since deteriorated.
The Supervisor advised Claimant to talk to the General Foreman who in turn advised Claimant to secure a medical opinion from his doctor as to his ability to perform his duties.
Claimant complied and returned with a statement restricting his duties to lifting a maximum of 10 pounds. Upon receipt of Claimant's doctor's restriction, and not having any positions that had a 10 pound maximum on what was being handled, the General Foreman immediately disqualified Claimant from service, pending advice from the Medical Department.
The Medical Department concurred with Claimant's doctor's diagnosis and did, 30 days prior to Claimant's doctor's full release to unrestricted duty, allow claimant to return to duty in accordance with their work hardening policy.
With the Medical Department participating in this matter, the General Foreman was relieved of any responsibility in determining what work Claimant could or could not do. When Claimant was allowed to return to work under the umbrella of the work hardening policy, the Foreman could then work around Claimant, assigning at first, light duties, etc.
The claim is for the 18 ''/z days lost by Claimant from the time the General Foreman disqualified him from service until the Medical Department allowed his return pursuant to the work hardening policy based upon an alleged violation of Rule 43(c).
The claim must fail for lack of a proven Rules violation. It is true that the Supervisor, at first, who disqualified Claimant, was the General Foreman, but his decision supported by Claimant's doctor and was subsequently backed by the Medical Form 1 Award No. 13435
Department. The General Foreman exercised good judgement. He had no basis to dispute Claimant's doctor's statement, and disqualified Claimant for the benefit not only of the Carrier, but for the benefit of the Claimant. It was a prudent move by the General Foreman. Under the circumstances evident here, the Board determines no Rule was violated by the Carrier.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.