Parties: Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks
 and

Statement of Claims 'Claim of System Committee ... than


        .. the Division Chairsan.


                  (c) L. N. Huffman shall be paid for all wage loss begin:-4:._ on June 2, 1977 and continuing until he is returned to his assig^rent.


Discussions The Claimant with a seniority date of 1941-was working
 as a Yazd Clerk at Sharon Yazd, Cincinnati, Ohio, in May 1958 when he
 suffered a heart attack. ^e was absent from duty due to his illness from

 May 31, 1968 to FaY 27, 1970, when he returned to work.
 From Nay 1970 to May 1972, the Claimant was absent due to illness 115 Work days. Because of this absenteeism, the Carrier requested the Claimant to report to a Carrier physician for a medical e>-ma:ination. On J.:ne 2, 1972, Dr. Yanley, a Carrier doctor, examined the Clairana and f o-_·,.=..a he Has 311 pounds over the Company's maximum weight for a man of his height and that his Llood pressure was 154/95, also above Company standards. As a result of t.:is examination, the Claimant was found

 physically unqualified for service.

                                        PL 6 9D35


                                            Award No. 14


                      - G -


On July 6, 1972, the Organization wrote the Carrier to join with it in establishirt a Board of Physicians to settle the instant dispute. Rule 8-D-1 states

              "(a) When an employee has been removed

              from service account of an examination

              made by a Company physician, the em

              ployee may request, individually or

              through his Division Chairman, that the

              question of his physical fitness to con

              tinue in his present occupation be finally

              decided before he is permanently removed

              therefrom."

On July 12, 1972, the Carrier rejected the Organization's request to set up a three doctor board on the grounds that this was not a dispute referable to a doctor board because the Board would not have the authority to chazzige the Carrier's Medical Standards.
 On July 17, 1972, the Organization filed a claim for lost earvags on_behalf of the Claimant. The Carrier denied this claim.
 On January 26, 1973, the Claimant was again examined by Dr. Yanley. Isis examination revealed that the Clai-ant had lost 19 pounds and his blood pressure had improved. The Claimant also presented a certificate from his personal physician, Dr. Test, which stated that the Claimant had been under his care for obesLty and high blood pressure. Dr. Ranley approved the return of the Claimant to duty as of January 27, 1973.

              The claim is therefore for back pay from June 21. 1972


to January 21, 1973.

                    Ca.^-ier's ioriticn


                The Carrier Stated it was justified i..^. removing the

Claimant frc,m se rv:Ce on the basis of co=petent medical a,:thority. A: .n o tine during the handling of the case was the Claimant's physical condition
                                      PL 6 ao35


                                        Award 7'o. 14

_g_ as reported both by his personal physician and the Carrier's doctor, disputed by the Organization, The only basis for the claim was that the Claimant was physically fit when he was removed from service on June 3, 1972 and the Organization's questioning of the Carrier's right to set reasonable medical standards. The Carrier alluded to a letter from Dr. Schmidt, a specialist who treated the Claimant and who stated the Claimant had exogenous obesity and hypertension, both of wtllch were under treatment. This information does not suggest the Claimant was physically fit. This diagnosis was what led Dr. N~anley to conclude that the Clainant was not fit for duty when he exceeded the Carrier's standards on weight and blood pressure.
 The Cagier noted that it alone is responsible for maintaining the safe and efficient operation of its facilities. It, therefore, had the right to require employees to meet reasonable standards of physical fitness. The standards which the Carrier adopted are the product of years of experience in dealln; with the many hazards of this Industry. There is no showing that the Carrier acted capriciously or in bad faith in this case.
 The Carrier stressed that if a Board of Physicians had been appointed in July 1972, all that it could have determined was that the Clais_ant was suffering from obesity and hypertensiqn. But such a Board cold not have set aside the Carrier's Medical Standards.

                  Orcamization's position

the CrrC,a:,i~:tion stated the Carrier violated Pule 8-D-1 when it refused its request to have a Board of Doctors determine the Clamat's fitness acrd ability. Rule 8-D-1 gives the Clallzant,-upon
                                      PL r3 69095


Award No. 14 -4request, the right to have his ppt,.ysical fitness determined by a Board of Physicians. :lie Claimant is not required to show cause or evidence in support of his request. Nor does the Carrier have the option to refuse such a request. The Organization stated that the Carrier's right to set medical standards is not questioned, but Rule S-D-1 does give the employee the right to question the reasonableness of such medical standards, particularly in their application to his individual case. The Organization further noted that the Claim-art was disqualified initially for being overweight, and there was no mention of high blood pressure in the June 1972 service disqualification. Furthermore, the Organization stressed that the Carrier's medical standards are not inflexible, and that when the Carrier qualified the Claimant for service on January 1973 he had only lost 19 of the 311 pounds of his excess weight.
              The Organization stated that when the Carrier agreed

to Rule 8-D-1, it made its findings on physical fitness open to dispute and agreed to a definite procedure for a determination by a Board of 1hysicians upon request by an employee or his representative. Under the facts of this case, the Claimant was improperly removed from service, and is therefore
 entitled to receive back pay from June 2, 1972 to January 27, 1973.

 Findings t The Board, upon the whole record and a:.1 the evidence,
 finds that the employee and Carrier are Employee and Carrier within the
 meaning of the Pailuay Labor Act; that the Board has Ju_-1I !ction over the
 dispute and teat the par `ies to the dispute were given due notice of '.he
 haaxL.g thereon.

 While the 3oarn finds this to be a close case, it finds that the Carrier was entitled to hold that a Yedical Board under (tile 8-rrl
                                        PL a ao95


                                          Award No. 14


                        -5-

xas not the proper procedure under the facts of this case. The Carrier was entitled to maintain that it had the right to establish certain standards of weight and blood pressure. What was at issus was whether a Board of Physicians could determine whether these medical standards were valid. Rule 8-D-1 properly comes into being when there is a dispute as to whether a man's physical condition permits him to return to duty. If, for example, Dr. Manley had determined that the Claimant was not entitled to return to service because he has still subject to a cardiac condition and it was unsafe to permit him to return to work, then the determination of the Claimant's overall ability to perform his duties would have been the proper subject of determination by an 8-D-1 Board of Doctors.
 However, in the instant case, Dr. Manley disqualified the Claimant because he did not meet the Carrier's predeterrined slzndzxds of blood pressure and xcight. These were standa_-3s which the Carrier could promulgate unilaterally unless they were unreasonable and arbitrary on their face - and the record contains no such allegation. This Board does not believe a panel of doctors is empowered to overrule Carrier established medical standards reasonable on their face.
 The matter of established medical standards is a matter that the Carrier could control, and it could waive them if it elected, provided it did not do so in a discririnatory manner. :he Carrier's refusal to su'.mit t.ze establish=ent of medical standt:-ds, is not a breach of isle 8-11.
 The Board finds the Carrier's application of its weight and blow rresc,:re requ~4-eme^.ts to an enployee with the C:ai-ant's
                                      PL (3 o?o3S


                                        Award No. 14


                        -6-

medical history was not arbitrary or unreasonable to adopt the position that it was not contractually obligated to submit its medical sttandaxds to third party review.

 Award: Claim denied.

R ~, v ~' <'~_ ..z ...,~...-~ .fin

Jacob ~Seidentrerg, C:nai=an and Neutral Yember


N, Mt. Berner, Carrier i.E--aC)er r'. T.'L~Ti ~=ployee Piemmber