On July 14, 1994, the Claimant's physician provided the Claimant with a page from his prescription pad which stated "patient is released to return to full duty work." In addition, he completed a medical report form which reported that Claimant had been operated on for a broken foot on May 20, 1994, and in the "Comments" section added: "(Claimant) is released to return to work, however, his foot is still somewhat edemous and painful. Patient has been having physical therapy to aid in the healing progress."

Upon receiving the report, the Carrier's medical department determined that Claimant could not be allowed to return to work while his foot remained swollen and that Claimant should submit a further evaluation from his Doctor when he believed Claimant's condition allowed unlimited work. On July 26, 1994, the Claimant's Physician submitted a second medical report. In the Comments section he stated: "Claimant is able to work without any limitations." The following day Claimant was approved by the Carrier's medical department to return to work.

The Organization contends the Carrier violated the Agreement when it withheld the Claimant from service and deprived him of his right to perform the work of his regular assignment.

The Carrier contends there has been no violation of the Agreement because the Carrier made proper medical decisions to deal with a medical uncertainty.

This Board has consistently held that a Carrier's determination of an employee's physical ability to work will be upheld unless it is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary. In this case, the original information from the Claimant's physician was unclear, at best contradictory. Claimant's doctor approved Claimant's return to work at the same time he reported that Claimant's foot was still swollen and painful. It was certainly reasonable for the Carrier's medical department to desire a more determinative statement from Claimant's doctor. When it received said statement, Claimant was immediately approved to return to work. Thus the Carrier acted with proper caution by insuring the Claimant would be able to perform his job responsibilities in a safe manner without imperilling his health. Carrier's decision was not unreasonable or arbitrary. No contract violation occurred.

AWARD