Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27729
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-28317
 89-3-88-3-81
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Paul C. Carter when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

1. Carrier violated TCU Agreement when on the date of November 7, 1986 it dismissed Ms. Beverly Buckman, St. Louis, Missouri from service on the date of November 7, 1986 following investigation held November 3, 1986. Claimant had been withheld f
2. Carrier's action in this case violated the Agreement expressly Rule 18 and related Rules contained therein in issuing such discipline which was harsh, excessive, unwarranted and an abuse of discretion due to the facts and circumstances as brought out in the investigation.

 3. Carrier shall now be required to reinstate Claimant Ms. Beverly Buckman to service with pay for all time lost, seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired effective September 3, 1986 the date Claimant was withheld from service and to continue each workday thereafter until corrected and the record of investigation held November 3, 1986 and all references thereto be removed from her personal record."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Prior to the occurrence giving rise to the dispute herein, Claimant, with a seniority date of October 7, 1968, was employed as a Correction Accounting Clerk in Carrier's
The Claim before the Board alleges a violation of the Agreement when Carrier dismissed Claimant from service on November 7, 1986, following an Investigation conducted on November 3, 1986.
 Form 1 Award No. 27729
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-28317
 89-3-88-3-81

 The record shows that on August 18, 1986, Claimant's personal physician wrote a letter "To Whom of absence for Claimant for one week. Claimant returned to work on August 25, 1986. Following several discussions between Claimant and Carrier's DirectorInterline Accounting and letter reading in part:





On October 3, 1986, Carrier's Assistant Medical Director wrote Claimant:



On October 7, 1986, Carrier's Director-Interline Accounting directed Claimant to report to the Behavioral Health System Center at St. Louis, Missouri, at 1:00 PM on October 14, 1986, for an evaluation and determination as to when she could return to active service.
 Form 1 Award No. 27729
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-28317
 89-3-88-3-81

 On October 23, 1986, the Director-Interline Accounting instructed Claimant to report for formal Investigation on October 29, 1986:

The Investigation was postponed and conducted on November 3, 1986. On November 7, 1986, Claimant was dismissed from Carrier's service for failing and refusing to comply with instructions issued by the Director-Interline Accounting on October 7, 1986.

 Rule 18 of the applicable Agreement contains the usual provisions for a fair and impartial Investigation, and the right of appeal through the designated channel up to and of the investigation conducted on November 3, 1986, has been made a part of the record. The Director-Interline Accounting was the Carrier's principal witness in the investigation. The record also contains memoranda prepared by the Director-Interline Accounting and the person who was later the conducting officer of the Investigation held on November 3, 1986, concerning their participation in various con service on September 3, 1986, and the investigation of November 3, 1986.

 Without discussing what was developed in the Investigation of November 3, 1986, we are concerned the manner in which the Investigation was conducted and the appeal procedure provided Claimant following her dismissal. The record shows that such issues were raised in the on-property handling of the dispute. The record shows that the hearing officer at the Investigation and the witness for the Carrier had jointly participated in various decisions concerning Claimant prior to the Investigation. It cannot properly be held that either had a strictly impartial role in the matter. ( Award 21046.)

 The record also shows that the officer who preferred the charge against the Claimant, and was the principal and only witness for the Carrier at the Investigation, was the Carrier officer to receive the appeal of Claimant's dismissal. Thus, t weigh or pass on his own evidence, which procedure, in our opinion, deprived the Claimant of a fair and impartial appeal as contemplated by Rule 18 of the Agreement. (See Third Division Awards 24547, 24476, 17156; Second Division Award 7921.)

 Based on the record, the Board finds and holds that the dismissal of Claimant from service on November 7, 1986, cannot be sustained. Her rights under Rule 18 of the Agreement were violated.
 Form 1 Award No. 27729
 Page 4 Docket No. CL-28317
 89-3-88-3-81

 The record contains a letter addressed to the Organization by the Carrier on September 1, 1987, confirming a conference of August 24, 1987. The letter reads in part:





On November 12, 1987, Carrier's Assistant Medical Director recommended that Claimant be returned 1987, Claimant was notified that she was released to return to work. In its Submission, the Carrier states that Claimant did return to work in the Interline Accounting Departme
The Claim will be sustained to the extent of awarding that Claimant be paid for time lost from date of dismissal, November 7, 1986, to date of the conference on August 24, 1987, with compensation computed in accordance with Rule 18(H) of the Agreement. We do not consider that time lost by Claimant subsequent to august 24, 1987, as properly chargeable to the carrier.

 This Board has issued numerous Awards recognizing the Carrier's inherent right to determine the right to depend upon the advice of its Chief Medical officer in such matters. (See Third Division Award 25417 and others cited therein.) We have also held that medical disqualification is not considered discipline (Third Division Award 25801). However, we do not consider such Awards as being applicable in the present case. As previously stated, the issue involved herein is the dismissal of Claimant from service following the Investigation held on November 6, 1986.

 This Award is based strictly on the record in this particular dispute, and is not to be consider the physical disqualification of any employee.
 Form 1 Award No. 27729
 Page 5 Docket No. CL-28317
 89-3-88-3-81




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:r~
 ' Nancy J-,O'Wer - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of March 1989.