Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29008
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-29356
 91-3-90-3-270
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Carol J. Zamperini when award was rendered.

 (A. Maxine Lewis PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "Harassment and unjust removal from service for the period of January, 1986 until May, 1988 when Ms. Lewis was returned to service, all lost earnings due are requested as a part of this appeal."

 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.



In August, 1985, the Claimant was assigned to work as a Train Clerk in Tower C of the Bensenville Yard. As a result of her alleged reaction to tobacco smoke, she filed an injury report on August 29, 1985, claiming injury on August 22, 1985. On or about September 4, 1985, the Carrier responded by prohibiting smoking in her designated area if any employee objected.

 In the interim, on August 30, 1985, the Carrier sent the Claimant notice to appear at an Investigation concerning the timeliness of the submission of her injury repor physician submitted a letter stating his medical opinion that the Claimant should not work the night shift due to rheumatoid arthritis. Regardless, the Claimant continued to work all shifts through January 23, 1986.
 Form 1 Award No. 29008
 Page 2 Docket No. MS-29356
 91-3-90-3-270
 on January 27, 1986, the Claimant was displaced by a more senior
 employee. On January 29, 1986, she was advised that she had fifteen (15) days
 to exercise her displacement rights under Rule 22 of the Agreement. In addi
 tion, she was told how to apply for the Extra Board under Rule 18(g). The
 Claimant applied to the Extra Board on January 31, 1986.

 In the meantime, the Carrier's medical staff was reviewing the November 18, 1985, statement from the Claimant's personal physician. Around the end of January or beginning of February the Claimant was advised that in response to the advice from her personal physician, the Medical Services Department was restricting her from working the night shift. In effect, she was placed on medical leave of absence, since all Extra Board'assignments required working all three shifts.

 On February 11, 1986, the Claimant was advised to notify the Carrier if there was any change in her medical status. The Carrier did not hear from the Claimant by September 15, 1987, at which time they wrote to her requesting an update on her medical condition. The Claimant had a new physician who had been administering to her medical needs for four weeks. After receiving the Carrier's request, she forwarded to them a note from this physician. Among other things the letter indicated:

The Carrier's Medical Director responded to the statement by requesting additional information r that the blood tests submitted by her physician were not pertinent to the rheumatoid arthritis. He added that a follow-up examination by the doctor iaho had attended her during her initial employment would be helpful, since that physician had originally made the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and advised against her working this request by attempting to impeach the diagnosis of her original doctor and revealing that she had no need to visit a physician because of this condition during her entire medical leave. She further stated she took responsibility for herself. She believed she was in good health and problems she had in the past were related to her sensitivity to smoke.

 Despite being contacted on three successive occasions with a request to supply the above cited information, the Claimant provided no such information nor did any attendi Form 1 Award No. 29008
 Page 3 Docket No. MS-29356
 91-3-90-3-270

 The Carrier notified the Claimant that she was to attend a formal Investigation to determine her responsibility, if any, in failing to provide the medical information relative to her condition and alleged recovery therefrom. The Investigation
In October, 1988, five (5) months after she returned to work, she filed the Claim which is the subject matter of this dispute.

 There are obvious procedural flaws in the presentation of this charge. While the Board believes the Carrier's argument regarding the timeliness of this claim may be valid, we believe it is in the best interest of the Parties to examine this case on its merits.

 As this Board has held on numerous occasions, the Carrier has the right to protect itself and its employees by assuring that its active employees are physically able Claimant was a member of an Extra Board. One of the requirements of the Extra List is that the employees on such a list make themselves available for all shifts.

 In November, 1985, the Claimant's personal physician advised the
 Carrier that it was "against his medical advice (sic) that she work night
 shifts." (emphasis added) AF ter reviewing the in ormation provided, an
 realizing the only work available required the Claimant to work all three
 shifts, the Carrier placed the Claimant on medical leave.

 This was within the Carrier's rights and was based on the evidence submitted by the Claimant's personal physician. The Carrier had not taken this action arbitrarily. While the Claimant may have been willing to work all three shifts, as she had done for two and one-half months while the medical staff reviewed her doctor's request, the Carrier would have placed itself in an untenable position had they ignored her doctor's opinion and allowed her to continue this course.

 Furthermore, despite being asked to keep the Carrier advised of her medical condition, the Claimant failed to communicate with the Carrier until they took the initiative and asked her for an update in September, 1987. Even though she subsequently provided a letter from a doctor who had been attending her for four weeks, the letter did not contain enough information on which the Carrier could justify returning her to work. They requested additional information on three differen the Claimant in which she criticized the physician who had diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis originally to smoke. It goes without saying that such a letter was not in compliance with the Carrier's request. The Claimant was not qualified in medicine.
 Form 1 Award No. 29008
 Page 4 Docket No. MS-29356
 91-3-90-3-270
 It was only after a formal Investigation that the Claimant submitted
 to an appropriate physical examination. The Claimant was given a medical
 clearance to return to work and did so shortly after the Carrier received this
 medical report.

 In conclusion, the Board finds no basis to this claim. The Carrier acted properly in putting the Claimant on medical leave based on her physician's findings. During he Carrier even though, according to her own statements, she had not experienced any symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis during her leave. It wasn't until they contacted her that she sent them any information. At that time she provided them with a statement from a doctor she had been seeing for only a short period. When the Carrier requested additional information, she did nothing until forced to do so through an Investigation. The Claimant must accept responsibility for any delay in her return to work.






Attest:.
      ' Na~ ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of September 1991.