Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28181
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26886
 89-3-85-3-716
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

(National Railroad Passenger Corporation

(Amtrak) - Northeast Corridor


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

 Trackman J. Melbourne shall be compensated for all compensation loss suffered by him as a result of being improperly withheld from service May 21, 1984 to June 22, 1984 (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-1067)."

 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 May 20, 1984, Claimant, who held the position of Trackman with Tie and Surfacing Gang Z-382, was assigned by his new supervisor the duties of installing rail anchors with a rail anchor wrench. Claimant informed his supervisor that he felt that if he had to use the rail anchor wrench he would have a recurrence of an on-the-job injury suffered on a prior occasion. According to the Organization, Claimant suffered a neck injury on the job approximately eight years ago which resulted in eight (8) weeks of lost time. On his return to duty, Claimant allegedly continued to experience some discomfort as a result of tha wrench. As a result, the Organization contends that Carrier permitted the Claimant to avoid the use of anchor wrenches whenever possible, a practice which continued until Claimant returned from furlough, and on the date in question, informed his new supervisor of the above-described circumstances. That supervisor then removed Claimant from service and advised him that he would be required to take a physical examination to determine his fitness to return to duty as a Trackman.
 Form 1 Award No. 28181
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-26886
 89-3-85-3-716

 According to a Carrier letter dated May 29, 1984, Claimant was given two letters dated May 21, 1984, explaining why he had been removed from service. In addition, the le at Claimant's home on May 22, 1984. The letter further states that Claimant failed to appear for the physical exam and instructs the Claimant to contact the Carrier to reschedule the evaluation.

 On May 31, 1984, Claimant contacted the Carrier and arrangements were made for him to report to the Osteopathic Medical Center of Philadelphia. On June 6, 1984, Claimant was examined by Dr. John J. McPhileny, Sr., an orthopedic surgeon, who conclu [Claimant] cannot return to work in unlimited capacity."

 Carrier was advised by the Osteopathic Center on June 14, 1984, of the results of Claimant's medical evaluation. The next day, June 15, Claimant was advised that he could return to duty immediately. On June 18, 1984, Claimant attempted to return to service by filling a vacancy in the Paoli Maintenance Gang G-362. However, since that position was already filled by a senior employee, Claimant was told he could not fill the vacancy. It was not until June 22, 1984, that Claimant returned to his former position with Tie and Resurfacing Gang G-382 and assumed his former duties as Trackman.

 The Organization contends that Claimant was improperly withheld from service commencing May 21, 1984, and that he should have been allowed to continue in service as cont










Carrier, on the other hand, argues that no rule of the Agreement requires it to keep an employee under pay when the employee advises the Carrier that he feels he is not medically fit for service, as Claimant did in
 Form 1 Award No. 28181
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-26886
 89-3-85-3-716

 the case at bar. In fact, Carrier stresses its right to withhold an employee from service to determine medical qualifications to perform a job under such conditions is well established. Claimant was not disciplined in any manner, Carrier asserts, but was simply removed from service until his medical status could be determined, an action which was reasonable and proper under the circumstances, in the Carri
We find no fault with Carrier's well-documented argument that it has the right to assure itself of the physical condition of its employees, and that this right also includes Carrier's privilege of requiring a physical examination to determine the employee's fitness for duty. However, those rights are circumscribed by the rules of the parties. In this case, Rule 62 clearly provides that when examinations are required by the Carrier, arrangements shall be made to t circumstances which have no application here.

 Carrier has argued that it should have the right to withhold an employee from service when the employee himself has raised doubts about his fitness to perform the work. In this case, however, the record does not establish that Claimant had suffered any new disability or suffered a recurrence of the old injury. circumstances involved in the previous on-the-job injury and also of the fact that he had previously been permitted to avoid the use of the anchor wrench in the past whenever possible. We cannot discern from the record before us why this particular supervisor decided to withhold Claimant from service when there had been an eight year interval where Claimant had apparently worked without a problem. We do find, however, that Carrier has failed to establish that it had justification for holding Claimant out of service on May 20, 1984.

 Carrier has also asserted that even assuming arguendo that this Claim has merit, Claimant is barred from claiming any loss of compensation from June 16, 1984, the date on which he could have first returned to service, until June 22, 1984, when Claimant actually returned. Apparently, Carrier is suggesting that Claimant volu made himself unavailable for service. The record does not support that contention. Claimant was advi He was told by a Carrier Representative to report to Paoli, Pennsylvania, on Monday, June 18, 1984, after the intervening weekend. The Claimant reported as directed but was not allowed to displace the position. Finally, according to the Organization's unrefuted evidence, on June 21, 1984, Claimant received a letter from the Carrier dated June 18, 1984, directing him to report for duty with the Tie Gang at Downingtown, Pennsylvania. Claimant did so the next day. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Carrier has not shown that Claimant was dilatory or somehow responsible for any delay in returning to duty, and the full time period sought in the Claim will be allowed.
 Form 1 Award No. 28181
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-26886
 89-3-85-3-716
 Finally, the Carrier urges that any compensation owing the Claimant
 should be limited to the straight time rate. We agree that this is the
 majority view and the Claim will be sustained on that basis.






Attest: /
 'Nancy J. D -Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of November 1989.