PAUTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline c. Stcamssh_n Clarks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Engloyas
 DISPUTE ) and
 Baltimore and Ohio Pailroad Company
 ettES'iIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Did Carrier im?roparly terminate the wsj- n- P'rot-cteC
 employee Anna .i. Zobrest o n January 17,1965?

February 7, 7.965, and Interpretations thc;cte, when it
 terminated the wages of Anna i4. Zobrest o:: Janoary 17,
 1966?
 (3) Shall Carrier be required to pay t_. N. Zobrest one day's
 pay for January 17, 1966, and etch subsequent date, G,.
 her guaranteed rate of pay, in accordance with the terms
 of the Agreement of February 7, 1965, until s,:, obtains
 a position in accordance with the terns of t!« Rulcs
 Agreement on the B. & 0. Railroad?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: The parties are in a3reemen'_ as to the facts involved in the

 instant dispute. On June 13, 1965, an Imple:,wnt-ing A ^ree...-ent
 was executed, abolishing and transferring certain positions
 in Buffalo to Baltimore, effective DaceD:ber 10, 1955. 1:h-=
 Claimant was allowed to exercise displacement rights to : lard Clerk position
 on December 13, 1965. Additionally, on December 11, 7.965, she reported to
 the Carrieris local ',-.-dicr.I Examiner and advised hi-. of a conger=_::.^,1 defect
 in her right eye. She was, nonetheless, permitted to displace until January
 14, 1966, when the ChiQ ILdical Director would not certify her for outside
 yard work.
The problem arises partially as a result of the effective Agreement. The local Agreement provides that employees who arc displaced or whose positions are abolished :must exercise displacement rights within six calendar days; and those who are removed for medical reasons acquire no displacement rights and way only secure another position by bidding. It is the Organization's contention that had the Claimant not been cleared by tie local 11dical Officer, she could have displaced on other positions in he: seniority district.

 In issue is Article IV, Section 5, of the February 7, 1965 National Oreem"ant, the pertinent portion of which is hereinafter quoted:

              tt

              A protected employee shall not be entitled to the Kneiits A this Article during Amy par-iocl, 111 which he fails t0 work due to disability,


One a rgurrant presented by tha OrganUntion ._s th__ 'C,. tar:,, disability ,.s, used in Section 5, is intended to Haply to a situnVo:'uher~ total. disability is involved. We fail to find .:y ,. -ective limiting ,:.__
                                                .


type of disability contained therein. Further, Qvascion and 1;o. 1,
 under Section 5, of the D?ovenbcr 24, 1955 interpretations, =rovinis ths=

                  5 y t

SUCK an employee does not lose his protected status. HG`:'::VC:.", .._ is T:C:L entitled to the compensation guarantee.

            We ..re sympathetic with the plight of the C1alroa h_rein.

                                        · -

4.e are also cognizant ox similar situations wherein t::a G::zef -_..:i.cal G=riCer has overruled local Thdical Officers. In this -regard, tie OrS _._....::. not: contend that the Chief ?wdical Officer's decision was arbitrary or improper. Rather, it faults the Company for permitting her to displace on tile Yard Clerk position in the firs instance.

 As a matter of f act, tl:e Carrier suggested a modification o= tile
 local Agreement whereby the Claimant would be enabled to exercise Vtisplacevent
 rights on positions which she could qualify. It is obvious that t::_ Grgai::a
 tion could not accept such proposal, inasmuch as of:her junior engloyces would
 be affected thereby. °

 Hence, in this posture, has the Carrier violated the rebruary 7, 1965 Agreerent? 41e are copal led to acknowledge that it has complied with Article Its, Section 5, thereof. Despite the fact that we have stated our conclusions with respect to the technical a 22pacts of the Organiza'tion's claim, we believe, however, that a further co=2nt is necessary. IM Carrier could have expedited the decision of the Chief 1~edical Examiner, in view of the local Medical Officer's knowledge of her congenital defect:, so as to prevent the tolling of the six calendar days.
                        ANA M)


            Ike answer to questions (1), (2) and (3) is in the negative.


                        :sirray Ii.^Ron:·:un .

                        Neutral h-rrber


Dated: Wasaington, D. C.
      November 17, 1969