(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Belt Railway Company of Chicago

1. The Carrier withheld Clerk G. Weidner from its service for a period from August 18 through August 31, 1976 without just cause and in violation of the applicable Agreement.

 2. The Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. Weidner for eight (8) hours' pay at the pro rata rate of his position for each of dates August 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 and 31, 1976.

 GPI\701 OF BOARD: When Claimant reported for duty on August 18, 1976
 after having been absent due to illness on the
 preceding day - he was instructed to report to a clinic for examinati
 by Carrier physicians.

 At the clinic, Claimant furnished a statement from his personal physician indicating that his absence resulted from a previous off-duty injury. Nonetheless, Carrier's physician advised that examination by a psychiatrist or psychologist was indicated. After a number of such examinations (during which he was withheld from service), Claimant returned to work on September 1, 1976.
Claimant asserts that Carrier's action amounted to harassment, and was discipline without due process; resulting in a denial of ten days' pay.

 On the property, Carrier asserted that Claimant requested to be off on August 17, 1976 in order to drive his niece to the airport. Because of the "...excessive number of days he had already
                                                            i


                    Au-and \umber 22412 Page 2

                                                            i

                    Docket :lumber C7_-22396


taken off for sickness and personal business, and in view of the fact that this request came at the time of the month when the work is the heaviest..." he was advised to find another way to get his niece to the airport. On the i7 tof August, he called in an,- reported sick. He was told to bring a medical certification when re reported to work. He did so, but the certificate was so void of pertinent details it caused Carrier to send him to the Company Doctor to determine if he was able to work. That visit led to psychological evaluation.

 While the matter was under consideration on the property, Carrier advised:

      "The fact is that up to the date of this incident, during the Year 1976 Mr. Weidner had been absent for 74 days because of illness or personal reasons. This does not include the partial days that he was absent b·· coming in "ate or leaving early. During the period in question there were 159 work days on which vc. Weidner was scheduled to work of which he was absent 20 days on vacation, leaving a total o; 139 work days. =nas=ch as ffr. Weidner had worked less than 507 of to time .. for that portion of the year up to and including August 17, the Comany had gone -reason to question his p-1y;;i,:ai ability to. perform his dutiss with reasonable regularity.


      During any extended period of absence for illness, stay in a hospital or off duty ):ijury, it is this Company's policy to require a physical examination. lr-suaaach as Mr. Weidner alleged that his last absence prior to this incident was a result of an off duty injury, he was required to go to the doctor to determine the extent of his injuries and to determine whether or no= he was physically able to work as a clerk full time.


      The Company doctor's initial examination caused nun to believe that Mr. Weidner should see a psychologist. Arrangements were made for a first visit followed by, I believe, two additional visits, following which the psychologist, through our Company doctor recommended that he be returned to service and that he continue as a private patient receiving vrther, therapy. Apparently the therapy which Mr. Weidner received as result of the

                                                            i

                    Award Number 22412 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-22396


      "complained about incident has resulted in some improvement because he has not been off work as much since his return as he was prior thereto."


While the Claimant did not contradict the Carrier's version of the facts which surrounded the absence, he did remind Carrier that it had hired him with full knowledge of certain physical ailments and disability. Although Carrier denies said knowledge, we find it unnecessary to comment at length an that dispute because there is no evidence of record to suggest that those asserted ailments are pertinent to this absence and the Carrier's action.

        Carrier invites our attention to Rule 63:


        "(a) Employes coming within the scope of this agreement will submit themselves to physical examination by the Company doctor only when it is apparent their health or vision is such that examination should be made. Being disqualified by Chief Surgeon, the right of appeal for further nandiing between the officers of the Company and General Chairman is agreed upon.


        (b) Efforts will be made to furnish employment (suited to their capacity) to employes who have become physically unable to continue in service in their present positions."


It states that it nas already complied with Rule 63(b) and the events of 1976, including the August 17, 1976 absence, gave it abundant basis to act under 63(a).

 While we do not lightly disregard the Awards cited by the Organization in support of the claim, we find that they dealt with different types of factual circumstances and divergent rules. Here, Rule 63 (a) grants Carrier certain rights to require physical examinations when circumstances indica We are inclined to feel that the facts of this record justify Carrier's action.
                                                      i i/ .


                    Award Number 221-12 Page 4

                    Docket Number CL-22396


While there is always a tendency to scrutinize Carrier's actions in this type of a dispute to assure that the period of cime off of the payroll was held to a minimum, under the authority of a vast number of Awards, we cannot find that -en (10) days was excessive in this case. See, for example, Award 13, Public Law Board No. 1668 and Second Division Awards No. 7388 and No. 7251, among others.

        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 Empioyes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes witn~n the meaning of the Railway Labor Acc, as approved June 21,
                            :534;


That this Division of the Adjuaen= Board has jurisdiction over the d_spuce involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A h D


        Claim denied.


                          ISATIOKAL PkILROAD ADJUSTNWNT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST:'`' · si Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of May 1579. _ -