NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOAR
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-20263
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company
( (Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transportation Company:
Claim No. 1:
(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company
(Pacific Lines) violated the agreement between the Company and the employes of the Signal Department
(b) Signalman J. Harris be compensated for one (1)
hour and fifteen (15) minutes at his regular rate of pay for January 21,
1972 (A.M.) (Carrier's File: 011-221 (H))
Claim No. 2:
(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company
(Pacific Lines) violated the agreement between the Company and the employes of the Signal Department
Signalmen effective April 1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958 including
revisions), particularly Rules 70 and 71.
(b) Signalman H. B. Davis be compensated for two (2)
hours and thirty (30) minutes at his regular rate of pay for February 4,
1972, from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
(Carrier's File: 011-221 (d))
OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute in this matter, involving two claims,
concerns the issue of whether or not the requirement
of obtaining a doctor's release following an illness is a "required examination" under the provision
"RULE 71. EXAMINATION. Such examinations or re-examinations
as employes may be required to take, shall, if possible, be
conducted during regular working hours without deduction in
pay therefor."
Award Number 20570 Page 2
Docket Number SG-20263
In both Claims, the employes had been absent for one day due
to illness or disability and were under instructions, over a substantial
prior period of time, to secure a doctor's release prior to returning to
work. In both instances Claimants reported to work without the release
and were instructed to secure such a release as a condition precedent to
returning. The Claims are for the elapsed time required by the Claimants
to secure the releases and return to work.
It is clear and well established that Carrier has the right, in
the absence of any rule prohibitions, to require a doctor's release as a
condition precedent to returning to work following illness or accident
(See Awards 15592, 18317 and Second Division Awards 4808 and 6269 for
example). Such a doctor's release was not contemplated by the language
of Rule 71. That Rule was designed to provide for the situations where
the health or physical ability of the employe is suspect and when such
employe is required to report to a Carrier designated physician or hospital for physical examination
that Claimants were subjected to a physical examination and certainly no
evidence that they were "required" to undergo such examination. This
Board cannot extend the unambiguous meaning of Rule 71 to cover the requirements to secure doctor's
As a secondary issue, Petitioner has raised the argument that
Carrier's requirement of medical releases with respect to the two Claimants constituted a discrimina
Rule 57 (dealing with disciplinary investigations). No evidence in support of this assertion appears
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.
Award Number 20570 Page 3
Docket Number SG-20263
A W A R D
Claims denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
pm~
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:_
~·~·
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day ofDecember 1974,