OPINION OF BOARD: On November 19, 1959, Carrier advised Claimant in writing that as a result of a physical examination conducted on November 5, he was found not physically qualified to perform the duties of Section Foreman by reason of defective vision and that consequently be was removed from service.
The minimum visual requirements for service as a Section Foreman on this property are: 20/50 in one eye and 20/30 in the other, with or without glasses. The record shows that examinations of Claimant during progress of this claim on the property by two doctors of his own choice and one agreed upon by the parties as "disinterested" resulted in medical findings that. Claimant's vision (corrected) did not meet these minimum requirements.
These facts establish that the sole reason for removing Claimant from further service as a Section Foreman was that be was unable to meet the minimum visual requirements uniformly applied as a test of physical fitness for service in such position on this property. It is abundantly clear that this Board has no power to set aside these findings by competent and disinterested physicians, nor may we with propriety set aside or modify uniform and nondiscriminatory standards of physical fitness applied by a Carrier to its employes in ascertaining their physical or mental qualifications for service in a particular craft or class of employment.
Thus, the sole issue here presented is whether, as asserted, Claimant's rights under the disciplinary rule of the Agreement (Article 22, Rule 1) were violated by Carrier when it removed Claimant from service without first giving him a fair and impartial hearing.
The Employes' reliance on the disciplinary rule under the facts of this particular case is misplaced. Claimant was not subjected to discipline nor was he "dismissed" as that word is used in Rule 1 of Article 22. Claimant was not charged with an offense under which he might have been dismissed or discharged from the Carrier's service. He was withheld from further service solely because of failure to meet the physical requirements of the job but with his seniority and other rights under the Agreement unimpaired. The employer-employe relationship here was not severed. Claimant would, therefore, be entitled under the Agreement to reassert his right to return to service as a Section Foreman at any time he can show his ability to meet the minimum and uniform physical requirements appertaining thereto.
In view of the foregoing, this Board finds no violation of Claimant's rights under Article 22; nor can it be held that Carrier's action in withholding Claimant from further service based upon competent and disinterested medical findings was arbitrary or unreasonable. (See Awards 5908, 7204, 8186, 10631).
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 Tune 21, 1934; 11909-3o 938