NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-26493
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Southern Region)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
Welder Helper D. M. Senters shall be returned to his position as
welder
helper and
he shall be compensated for all compensation loss suffered
by him as a result of being improperly withheld from service beginning February 1, 1984 (System File
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was
employed by
the Carrier as a Welder-Helper.
He underwent surgery in March, 1983, for a ruptured disc,
and
reported for
work on February 1, 1984, with a "return to work" authorization, signed by his personal doctor.
work physical by Company doctors, who forwarded the results to the Chief Medical Officer. The Carrie
could only return to duty with a restriction that he not lift, pull or carry
more than fifty pounds. Such a condition does not meet Carrier's requirements
for a Welder-Helper position. Claimant has been out of service since that
time.
The Carrier raises a procedural objection to the handling of this
Claim, and asserts that it is barred by the Time Limit Rule of the Agreement.
Specifically, it points to the fact the Manager-Engineering Niehaus'
letter
declining the Claim was dated April 10, 1984, but the General Chairman's
appeal to the Senior Manager of Labor Relations was dated June 11, 1984 - more
than sixty days from the date of the declination.
The relevant provision of the Agreement, Rule 21 (h), provides in
pertinent part, as follows:
"B. If a disallowed claim or grievance is to be
appealed, such appeal must be in writing, and must
be taken within sixty (60) days from the receipt of
notice of disallowance . . . ."(Emphasis added)
Exhibit "B" to the Carrier's Ex Parte Submission shows that Mr. Niehaus' letter was received by
Agreement.
Award Number 26157 Page 2
Docket Number MW-26493
The Organization and the Carrier each challenge the propriety of the
others' medical statements. The Organization asserts that the Carrier doctor
who made the decision was not the same doctor who performed the medical examination of the Claimant.
checked a space on a form which said that Claimant was "able to perform professional duties," with n
to perform the strenuous lifting and other physical work required of a WelderHelper.
This Board has frequently held that it will not substitute its judgment for that of skilled medi
The Carrier's Chief Medical Officer certainly is competent to rule on the fitness of an individual f
showing that the Claimant's doctor specifically released the Claimant to perform work which required
real conflict in the medical evidence. However, in view of the time which has
elapsed, the Claimant's physical condition may have improved.
Therefore, the Board will award that Carrier provide the Claimant
with a new physical examination to determine his current fitness for duty as a
Welder-Helper, and, if Claimant successfully passes that examination, the Carrier will reinstate him
but without pay for time held out of service.
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 W A R D
Claim disposed of in accordance with the Opinion.
Award Number 26157 Page 3
Docket Number MW-26493
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. DE6er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of September 1986.