(J. D. Eller PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CUM: Claim of J. D. Eller:

 1. Carrier violated the Agreement when on October 17, 1974, it denied Truck Operator J. D. Eller the right to displace a junior ea:ployee at Tampa, Florida.





OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed as a Truck Operator by the
 Seacoast Transportation Company on January 23, 1959. The Seacoast Transportation Company is a wholly·owned subsidiary of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company. As a result of eye surgery in May, 1968, Claimant's vision .went to 20/400 in his right eye. Claimant was therefore medically restricted by the Company's Chief Medical Officer from driving any vehicle on, Company business. He was allowed to return to service as a Helper, however. Claimant worked as a Helper until the Helper's Board was reduced, effective October 10, 1974. On October 15, 1974, Claimant attempted to exercise his seniority, on a Truck Operator's position at Tampa, Florida. The Company denied his request due to his medical disqualification. Claimant asserts that he was arbitrarily denied his seniority rights when he was not allowed to displace a junior employe.

 Initially, the Company contends that they are not a carrier within the meaning of Section 1, First of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board therefore lacks jurisdiction over the current dispute. This Board fails to find the Company's argument persuasive. Insofar as we can discern, the Seacoast Transportation Company is indeed a carrier as contemplated by the Railway Labor Act. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over the dispute submitted by the Claimant. fSee Award No. 21990).


It is the considered opinion of this Board that when the Company disqualified Claimant from service as a Truck Operator, its decision was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. It has been consistently held by this Division that management has the right to determine the physical fitness of its employes. In the claim before us, the Company's Chief Medical Officer disqualified Claimant from driving any vehicle on Company business after his vision went to 20/400 following eye surgery. In reaching his decision, we hold the Chief Medical Officer did not act arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably. Accordingly, the medical disqualification of the Claimant will not be disturbed by this Board.

 The Claimant alleges that two other employes had eye problems similar to his,yet the Company did not disqualify them. However, the Company denies that the physical condition of the two employes in question was similar to the Claimant's. There is simply no probative evidence in the record to support the Clalmant's assertion. Accordingly, this Board is unable to find that Claimant was discriminated against as he suggests.

 The evidence fails to support the Claimant's position herein, and his claim must be denied as a result.

        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 21991 Page 3

                    Docket Number MS-21535

                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: da-44/ 444~/
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March 1978.