(a) The Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when on or before December 6, 1971, it arbitrarily did not permit Clerk Robert W. Reed to return to the service of the service.


        (b) Clerk Reed be compensated for a day's pay for December 6, 1971, and for each and all subsequent dates he could have worked, at the proper rate of pay of Chief Clerk to the Yardmaster, Ney Yards, Fort Worth, Texas, had he not been aribtrarily withheld from service thereby depriving him of the opportunity and right to work the said clerical position from December 6, 1971 until February 18, 1972.


        OPINION OF BOARD; Claimant alleges that Carrier did not take steps, within

        a reasonable period of time, to restore him to duty after

        his personal physician certified that he was physically and mentally capable

        of doing so.


        The Carrier has raised a number of procedural issues. However, the Board is of the view that the dispute can be disposed of on its merits and accordingly it is unnecessary to consider the procedural matters.


        The record shows that Claimant was confined in a Neuropsychiatric Center and Hospital for a lengthy period of time following an overdose of steeping pills in an apparent suicide attempt. He continued as an outpatient after release from the hospital.


        Claimant's personal physician advised that he had been discharged as mentally competent on July 10, 1971 and stated that return to work would be "therapy" for Claimant. Carrier's Medical Director disapproved a return to work because of Claimant's "abnormal emotional status." The claim is not concerned directly with the July, 1971 determination, but the Board feels that it serves as background information.


J

:c

                      Award Number 20344 Page 2

                      Docket Number CL-20369


      In November, 1971 further information was forwarded by the Claimant's personal physician and it medication and completely recovered. It was suggested that he return to work as soon as feasible.


      It was not until January, 1972 that Carrier's Medical Director was of the opinion that Claimant had possibly recovered sufficiently from his emotional status so as to be restored to active service. Thus, he directed certain physical and mental examinations. Claimant was examined by a Psychologist and a Psychiatrist. Their reports were relayed to the Carrier and after additional physical examination, Claimant was advised that his return to service had been approved on February 18, 1972.


      The Awards of this Board have concluded that the Carrier has the right to require an examination by its'Medical Department prior to restoring an individual to duty, but the Carrier service. We have reviewed certain Awards which have indicated that periods of "five days", "one week°, "ten days", etc. were reasonable under the circumstances. See, for e Division Award 6331 (Williams) and Second Division Award 6278 (McGovern).


      While the Board does not in any manner, dispute the results of the cited Awards, nonetheless, we are compelled to note that each indivLdual circumstance must be co


      Claimant in this dispute had taken rather severe, potentially self destructive, steps and had been subjected to lengthy hospitalization with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. He had been treated with psychotherapy, group therapy, individual therapy and drugs. His improvement was gradual (as stated by his personal physician) and when he was released from the hospital as mentally competent, he continued receiving therapy as an outpatient.


      Clearly, a Carrier has a duty to itself, the employee, and to its other employees to assure that individuals in its active employ- are both physically and mentally competent. While certain of the delays in this case would appear,, at first blush, to be lengthier than required, upon a full consideration of the docket and the seriousness of the matter, we are unable to state that the Carrier did not move with sufficient speed so as to warrant a sustaining of the claim. Again, we point out that this Award is limited to the facts and circumstances of this particular case and is not, in any manner, a suggestion that the results reached in prior cited Awards were improper.


i

 x
                Award Number 20344 Page 3

                Docket Number CL-20369


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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 the Agreement was not violated.


                      A R A B D


        Clafm is dasiati.


                          $ 1TT17CKT tarr.unan


                            NY ftd= of MAMA Dfxr: zian


        J


bated at ,h" 310t dwy jaf Jna9, ls-ra.