The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
On August 7, 1998, the Carrier removed the Claimant from service for a fitness for duty medical exam. Prior to his removal from service the Claimant was voicing and exhibiting aggression, rage, hostility and unsafe behavior. The Claimant was examined by a psychologist on August 27,1998. Based on the psychologist's recommendation, the Claimant was scheduled for a physical examination on September 17, 1998. The Claimant did not attend that exam because he moved from Roseville, California, to Tucson, Arizona. The Carrier rescheduled the Claimant's physical exam for September 29, 1998, and scheduled a psychiatric exam for October 2, 1998. The Carrier received the psychiatrist's report on October 21, 1998. The Carrier's medical director cleared the Claimant to return to work on November 2, 1998. However, the psychologist had recommended that a mediator facilitate the Claimant's return to the workforce. This did not occur until November 30, 1998.
The Organization contends that the Claimant was removed from service without a Hearing. However, it is clear that the Claimant's removal from service was not a disciplinary action. Rather, the Carrier acted pursuant to its right and responsibility to protect the safety of the Claimant and of the other employees, as the Carrier had reason to suspect that the Claimant's unsafe behavior may have been associated with a physical or mental condition. No Hearing was required.
The Organization further contends that the Carrier excessively delayed the Claimant's evaluation and return to service. However, the record indicates that a significant portion of the delay was caused by the Claimant himself. The Claimant failed to keep the September 17 appointment because he had moved to Tucson. The Carrier acted with reasonable promptness is scheduling the Claimant's medical examinations and rescheduling them after learning of the Claimant's relocation. Furthermore, the Carrier's medical director cleared the Claimant to return to work within a reasonable time after receiving the reports of the examinations. Form 1 Award No. 13613
The Claimant was cleared to return to work on November 2, 1998, but was not returned to service until November 30, 1998. The Carrier maintains that the medical evaluations revealed that the Claimant had a good deal of anger toward his supervisor and, consequently, it was determined to have a neutral mediator present to facilitate the Claimant's return to work. We agree that the decision to have a neutral mediator present was reasonable.
However, the record contains no evidence supporting the delay of the Claimant's return to service from November 2, 1998, the date he was cleared by the Carrier's medical director, to November 30, 1998, the date he actually returned. The record contains the assertion that the neutral mediator was not available until November 30. However, there is no evidence explaining why the mediator was unavailable or why another mediator could not have been obtained. While the Carrier should be afforded a reasonable time to arrange for a neutral mediator to facilitate the Claimant's return to the workforce, any delay beyond a week requires an explanation backed by evidentiary support. A bald assertion of mediator unavailability does not suffice. Accordingly, we will sustain the claim but only with respect to the delay in returning the Claimant to service beyond November 9, 1998.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimants) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.