Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28515
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27832
 90-3-87-3-337
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The Agreement was violated when Claimant D. 0. Taylor was improperly withheld from service D BMWE 601).

 (2) Because of the aforesaid violation, the claimant shall be compensated for all wage loss suff Year's Eve (December 31, 1985) and New Year's Day (January 1, 1986)."

 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.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 On December 16, 1985, Claimant called the Carrier to mark off because he was being hospitalized. Later in the day, a hospital employee notified the Carrier that Claimant had been admitted to the hospital's detoxification unit for treatment of a chemical dependency and the hospital expected to release Claimant on or about December 31, 1985. The hospital released Claimant on December 29 and the next day, Claimant appeared at work. The Carrier referred Claimant to the Union Pacific Employee Assistance Program for an evaluation of Claimant's fitness to resume his section duties. The Carrier approved Claimant to return to service
The record is unclear concerning Claimant's activities between December 30, 1985, and February 7, 1986. The Carrier represented to the Board that Claimant was participating in the Employee Assistance Program and being evaluated by an Employee Assistance Counselor.
 Form 1 Award No. 28515
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27832
 90-3-87-3-337

 While the Carrier emphatically denies that it granted Claimant a medical leave of absence, the record nonetheless reflects that Carrier treated Claimant as if he had been given an extended medical leave of absence. Therefore, the question becom to return Claimant to work within a reasonable time after his discharge from the hospital.

 This Board is faced with a dilemma. We do not want to undermine the confidentiality maintained for employees undergoing treatment for chemical and alcohol abuse. The unnecessary public exposure of private facts would deter workers from seeking help for their drug or alcohol problems. On the other hand, this Board cannot condone any Carrier delay in evaluating an employee's fitness for service after his own physician or a hospital has released him to return to work. In the usual case, the Carrier has a reasonable time, five to ten days, to determine if an employee is physically able to resume his railroad duties.

 This dilemma must be resolved on a case by case basis. While the record herein does not reveal what treatment, if any, Claimant was undergoing during the 42 days after he first attempted to return to service, we find that the Carrier reasonably required Claimant to obtain a confidential evaluation of his fitness for service. Also, the record does not reflect if Claimant submitted any medical information to the Carrier when he reported to service. Absent such information, the Carrier would be forced to have Claimant undergo an extensive physical evaluation. Therefore, we do not find that 42 days was an unreasonable period of time for the Carrier to evaluate Claimant's condition, administer confiden
This Board emphasizes, however, that it will not tolerate delays in evaluating employees' fitness for service. Carriers remain under an obligation to promptly permit em work.




                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      -'Nancy J. ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of August 1990.