At the relevant time, the Claimant was a B&B Mechanic working on the Orwood Bridge project. The Claimant reported for work on March 31, 1996, but was upset at the fact that he had twice been interviewed for transfer to engine service and, on both occasions, had been denied that transfer. According to the claim, on March 31, 1996, "Claimant . . . was upset . . . [and als a result of frustration, after starting work on that date, he felt that he could not keep his mind on his work, was an endangerment to the safety of himself, and others, therefore asked to be released from duty for the remainder of the shift."
On April 1,1996, the Claimant was advised by Manager Structures B. Busby that "[b]ased on your actions, (of walking off the job sight on the evening of March 31,1996) you are here by being referred to the Employee Assistance Counselor . . . . You are not to return to service until I have received a favorable recommendation."
The Claimant met with the EAP counselor who referred the Claimant to a therapist. The Claimant was ultimately permitted to return to work on April 9, 1996. This claim followed.
Under the circumstances, the Carrier's action of not permitting the Claimant to return to duty until he was cleared was not discipline, nor an arbitrary exercise of a managerial prerogative. See, e.g., Third Division Award 36056 ("The right of the Carrier to remove an employee from service when there is a reasonable basis for concern about physical and/or mental fitness for duty has been recognized. . . :'); Third Division Award 30253 (it was not arbitrary for the carrier therein to remove an employee from service and require examination by a psychiatrist).
Here, as stated in the claim, "Claimant . . . was upset . . . [and a)s a result of frustration . . . he felt that he . . . was an endangerment to the safety of himself, and others . . . ." The Carrier's decision to not allow the Claimant to return to duty until it was professionally determined that he could do so was not arbitrary.
The fact that the Claimant voluntarily removed himself from service on March 31, 1996 and was granted permission to leave work does not change the result Given the Claimant's state of mind, his decision to remove himself from work was commendable. However, it was for the Carrier to determine whether the Claimant was fit to return to duty after that date. Under the circumstances, the Organization has not Form 1 Award No. 36563