to relieve an employe whose physical condition creates a hazard to himself and to others.

Although fully justified in relying on the advice of its Chief Medical Officer, Carrier was willing to go even further in an effort to be completely fair. Carrier offered to submit the medical question to a three-man panel of physicians, both parties to be bound by the findings of the panel. Even this offer was rejected.

The respondent Carrier reserves the right, if and when it is furnished with ex parte petition filed by the petitioner in this case, which it has not seen, to make such further answer and defense as it may deem necessary and proper in relation to all allegations and claims as may have been advanced by the petitioner in such petition and which have not been answered in this, its initial answer.

Data in support of the Carrier's position have been presented to the employes' representatives.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant 71 year old signal maintainer had been in continuous service some 39 years. He had suffered a coronary attack in 1948 which kept him off duty about 6 months and another coronary attack in 1953 which kept him off duty for 7 months.

Following physical examination by the staff at Carrier's hospital at Waycross, Georgia, on June 11, 12 and 13, 1958, claimant was held out of service on account of his physical condition. The report showed among other conditions, a somewhat enlarged heart, right inguenal hernia, marked osteoarthriti§ of the spine and marked disk degeneration, sclerosis, and disease.

Claim was filed by claimant for all time lost following this examination as being wrongfully held out of service, and thereafter he was examined by a physician of his choice who submitted a report based on X-ray findings by a radiologist substantially the same as those of the hospital examination, but concluding that claimant could do the type of work which he had been doing in recent years with no difficulty whatever in spite of the X-ray findings of the spine.

Carrier thereafter offered to accept the finding of the majority of a board of three neutral physicians provided that in case he should be returned to service it should be without pay for time lost. The Organization declined to accept either that provision or the board of three doctors and sought to leave the issue to decision of a single neutral doctor. This was declined and the claim progressed here.

Since claimant's condition was degenerative and progressive Carrier was wrong in its proposed provision against pay for time lost if claimant should be returned to service and the Organization was wrong in declining the proposal of a three doctor panel. Carrier's officials have the duty and prerogative to determine the physical fitness of employes to serve in safety to themselves and the company, provided such decision is not arbitrary, capricious or unfair. Believing the decision to be unfair claimant could file claim as here done. Whether the decision was arbitrary or unfair should be decided by a board of physicians as proposed by Carrier, but in case

claimant should be restored to service by decision of said board it must be with pay for time lost from being held out of service, beginning June 16, 1958.

Accordingly, the case should be remanded to the property with directions promptly to select a board of impartial physicians as was proposed by Carrier and abide by the decision of the majority thereof, or return the case here for final award.

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:

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That this dispute be remanded to the property in accordance with the opinion.

AWARD