Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27977
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-27224
 89-3-86-3-303
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Martin F. Scheinman when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

1. Carrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreememt when it failed to compensate Mr. W. Beatty for a portion of the day on September 18, 1984, during which he was absent from work due to personal illness;

 2. Carrier shall now compensate Mr. Beatty three (3) hours' pay at the rate of his position for September 18, 1984, and shall allow him credit for one and one-half hours of personal leave in addition to any current allowance."

 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.

On September 7, 1984, Claimant was examined at Western Pennsylvania Hospital for treatment of swelling in the groin area. At this time it was detected that he was suffering from hypertension and was instructed to consult his regular physician.

 On September 18, 1984, Claimant advised his supervisor that he would need to be relieved of duty at noon for an appointment with his physician. Claimant was allowed 1 1/2 hours pay as personal leave which was the extent of his remaining allowance; he was denied compensation for the remaining three (3) hours.

Form 1 Award No. 27977
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-27224
 89-3-86-3-303

 The Organization alleges that Carrier violated Rule 18-Sick Leave of the Agreement by the denial of Claimant compensation for his absence. It maintains that Paragraph (g) provides for use of sick leave allowance in cases such as this dispute. That language states:

The Organization argues that the portion of the day that Claimant was absent was due to him having been instructed to consult his personal physician for follow-up care. In its view, this qualifies him for sick allowance.

 Carrier, on the other hand, maintains that Claimant's absence for a doctor's appointment for follow-up treatment does not meet the criteria for sick leave benefits. Instead, it argues that the circumstances in this dispute are such that it is c that Claimant did work a portion of the day in question, Carrier concludes that he was not absent due to being physically unable to work. It alleges that the provisions of the Sick Leave Rule clearly apply to "bona fide cases of sickness and off duty injury." Carrier asserts that this absence does not satisfy such requirement. Accordingly, Carrier asks that the claim be denied.

 A careful review of the record evidence convinces us that the claim must be sustained. Carrier alleges that an absence due to a doctor's appointment does not constitute was examined in a hospital emergency room and was instructed to consult his personal physician for follow-up treatment. At this appointment, he underwent a series of lab tests and prescribed medication for hypertension. The proper documentation was submitted to Carrier as evidence of his condition. There exists several exceptions in the language regarding sick leave benefits, but no reference to scheduled doctors' appointments is included within those exceptions. As such, Carrie
Accordingly, we find that Claimant's absence due to a doctor's appointment is compensable as sick leave and the claim must be sustained.

        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest~5

 Nancy J. D v -Executive Secrets y

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of June 1989.