Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 SECOND DIVISION
 Award No. 14000
 Docket No. 13874
 09-2-NRAB-00002-080024

 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Joseph M. Fwhen award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PARTIES TO Due:

STATEMEM OF CLAII~L










FINDINGS:

 The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 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.
 Form 1 Award No. 14000
 Page 2 Docket No. 13874
 09-2-NRAB-00002-080024

The Claimant was on an extended medical leave. While the record does not
 state when the Claimant began this medical leave, it is stipulated that the Claimant
 was off four work in excess of six months. Under the Crier's poky for reporting to
 work after absence due to a medical the Claimant's treating phpsiciant was
 required to come a Medical Status Form reconumending when the Claimant was
 medically able to return to work with or without restrictions. In addition, because the
 Claimant had been absent for more than six months, she was required to pass a
 "Return to Service Test." The Organization did not challenge the Carrier's right to
 reqo. e sums rindical dOCumentation prior to the GIVduUMt's rR'rsra to work, nor
 the C=miWs right to rapd<e the Clohoomt to ~ to and pass the retoro-to-mvioe
 emminadon.

the Claimant to service after her treaft phyddan relmsed her to return to work oft Jay 19, 20®'x, and whether such delay wa: attn'batable to the Cbdsmmt or to the Carrier. In making this detlrminatioo, tire Board ooofed itself to docw~ntstion that was suppBed during the handft of the case on the property as opposed to onsu~stantiated statements of by eit~r party.


The initial fact that must be determined is when the Claimant's treating physician sent the completed Medical Status Form to the Carrier's Medical Department recommending that the Claimant be returned to work on January 19, 2007 with no restrictions. The Carrier stated in its August 20 letter to the General Chairman that the Claimant's treatment provider informed the Medical Department on January 15 that the Claimant would be able to return to service and that the Medical Department received the doctor's report on January 20, 2007, which report contained the January 19 recommended return date. The Carrier states that the medical Department approved the Claimant's return to duty on January 24, 2007, at which time the Claimant's Supervisor was advised to arrange for the Return to Service test. The Carrier, based on this timeline, argues that the four days between January 20 and January 24, 2007, is not an unusual amount of time to review the Claimant's several medical conditions and determine her fitness for duty.


However, during the on-property handling, the Organization supplied the Carrier with documentation establishing that on January 9, 2007, the Claimant's

Form 1 Award Nil 14000
 Page 3 Docket No. 13874
 09-2-NRAB-00002-080024

physician faxed the completed Medical Release Form to both CareSys, the Carrier's medical provider, as well as to the Carrier's Medical Department. Even disregarding the date of transmission, it appears that at least five days went by before any further action was initiated by the Medical Department.


The Board will now adds the time InW between January, 24, when the
 Medical Department cleared the Claimant to return to work, and February, 2, 2007,
 when the Claimant returned to services As noted above, the Carrier had the right to
 have the Claimant take and pass fts return-to-duty examination prior to allowing her
 to return to work. The required examination was arranged for and conducted on
 January 26, 2007 (within two days) which certainly was not dilatory. While the
 Organization ~ that delay was caused by the Claimant's supervisor's iasisteuoe
 on being present at the tone the test was talon, there is no proof offered to t this
 allegation. Once tire Carrier received the results of the Claimant's return to-work
 eaam~atloe on Febnmrp 1, the Clmmant was petmftted to return to work on the neat
 day, February 2, 200?. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the time between
 the Clslnnant's return-tv-duty examination and her actual return to duty was
 uorasonaMe, nor in emess of the time that such proocss normally takes on thh

Based on a careW ezamroatioo of the record, the Board finds that the delay between January 9 surd 15, 2007 was unreasonable and contn`buted to the delay in scheduling the Claimant's return-to-duty examination. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Claimant should be compensated ten hours at the pro-rata rate for January 19, 20, 21 and 22, 2007, but that the balance of the claim remain denied








This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make

Form 1 Award No. 14000
 Page 4 Docket No. 13874
 09-2-NRAB-00002-080024

 the Award effective on or before 30 days Mowing the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.

                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Second Division


Dated at Chicago, Iltinols, this 9th day of April 2009.