(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company ( (William M. Gibbons, Trustee)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago, Rock Island
 and Pacific Railroad Company:

 (a) On or about November 17, 1977, the carrier violated the current Signalmen's-Agreement, especially rules 45, 82 and 83, when they would not allow Mr. J. J. Daily to return to work after his Leave of Absence expired.

 (b) Carrier now be required to compensate Mr. Daily, for all lost wages from November 17, 1977 to the time Mr. Daily returns to his position of Signal Mtnr. at Trenton, M0.

 (c) Carrier be required to compensate Mr. Daily, his expenses for travel, meals and lodging to obtain the physical exam that the carrier ordered.

 (d) Carrier be required to pay all charges if any to the Doctor for the physical examination."

OPINION O' BOARD: The record discloses that Mr. J. J. Daily, the
 Claimant herein, had been examined by Carrier
 doctors who diagnosed his condition as diabetis mellitus and hyper
 tension. He was granted a leave of absence for physical disability
 from his work at Trenton, Missouri from August 24, 1977 to November 23,
 1977.

 On November 11, 1977, he gave notice that he would return to work on November 17, 1977 with a certificate from Dr. Duffy, one of the Carrier doctors, stating that he was fit for work.


When he reported for work on November 17, 1977, he was informed that, before he could start work, it would be necessary for him to be examined by Dr. Schechter, another Carrier doctor who had previously examined him. He was thereafter examined by Dr. Schechter. The diagnoses of Doctors Duffy and Schechter were sent to the Chief Medical Officer of the Carrier in Chicago, Illinois.

 Mr. Daily alleges that he was not permitted to return to work before December 27, 1977. He, thereafter, filed a claim for wages lost from November 17th to December 27th of 1977, contending that there was an unreasonable delay on the part of the Carrier in processing the said medical reports. He also claimed bias by the Carrier against him.

 The Claimant also cited Rules 82, 83 and 45 as the basis for his claim.

 The Carrier responded by asserting that Rule 82 is concerned with examinations that may be required employment; that Rule 83 is concerned with personal injuries.

 The Carrier also asserted that it had complied with Rule 45 when it granted the Claimant's request for an extension of his leave of absence.

 The Carrier also stated that it bad never exhibited any bias towards the Claimant and none was proven in the record.

 The Carrier stated that the Agreement is silent on the matter of determining an employe's fitness to return to work following a medical leave of absence; that the determination rests solely with the Carrier.

 There was no evidence adduced on the record to show that the Carrier violated the rules cited by the Claimant or that the Carrier was biased against the Claimant. Further, there is nothing in the record to show that the Company unreasonably or arbitrarily prolonged Claimant's return to service. (Award 14761).
                  Docket Number SG-22766


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 vas not violated,


                    A W A R D


        The Claim is dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: a-1k.

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of November 1979.