could it take effective steps to extinguish such employe's seniority rights as protection is afforded to employe under the exception contained in the applicable rule. On the other hand, the burden rests upon the employe, eventually, to prove the disabling nature of the injuries or illness if the employe believes that the Carrier's action under Rule 3-C-1 was unwarranted. This Claimant seeks to discharge that burden by the production of two letters under different dates given by her personal physician plus an R.D. 26 (return to duty card) issued by a Company doctor on October 20, 1948. The Organization ascribes to such R.D. card a meaning far beyond its true import when they argue, "The issuance of an R.D. 26 (return to duty card) further designates that in the eyes of the Medical Examiner, Elizabeth Lawrence was in no position to assume the duties of her position prior to October 20, 1948." There can be no such assumption. Carrier's medical staff on three prior occasions, within three weeks of the date of the accident, found her injuries non-disabling. And there is nothing to show that the findings would have been any different if examination for the R.D. card had been requested at any time prior to October 20, 1948. The examination for R.D. card could not act to restore employment status provided it was regularly terminated. The case subject of Award No. 6652, cited by the Organization, differs factually from the instant case. There employment status existed and the controversy was over Claimant's ability to handle a particular job. The matter was remanded by the Board without decision.

The Carrier's medical doctors made three examinations and arrived at specific findings which reports could have been made available to Claimant or her representatives. To successfully carry her burden of proof, Claimant would have had to produce competent medical testimony sufficient to overcome, to the satisfaction of this Board, the prima facie case of non-disability made by the Carrier. Claimant's medical attendant made no such effort. His two general, non-descriptive letters are of slight value as evidence as a reading will readily reflect. If Claimant had in fact suffered from a fractured vertebra, for example, Carrier's findings could have been swept away by an X-ray demonstrating that fact, interpreted by a medical man whose competency had been proven by easily available means. If a herniated disc had been suffered in the accident of May 7, X-rays, milograms or discograms, competently interpreted, would have been most convincing and would have given grounds for the sustaining of this claim.

Because one examining Carrier doctor expressed an opinion that Claimant was malingering, the Organization argues that a disciplinary hearing should have been held rather than the procedure adopted. Award 2904 is cited in support of this contention. There is nothing in the record indicating that the Carrier adopted the opinion of one of its examining physicians. It proceeded at all times under the procedures made available to it by Rule 3-C-1 and we find no similar rule mentioned in the cited Award. That Award also indicates that the basis of discharge there relied upon in denying the claim was of "misstatements in regard to a material fact concerning which the Carrier had the right to demand the truth", an issue not raised in the instant case.

Claimant, we are compelled to find, has failed to sustain the burden of proof of disabling illness or injury so as to extend the period specified in Rule 3-C-1 for exercising seniority and the termination of the same was fully effective.

-FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

AWARD