PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it required
 Claimant H. H. Sauer to travel from his residence near Adams,
 Wisconsin to Eau Claire, Wisconsin for a mandatory return to
 work physical without allowing him the appropriate automobile
 expense and travel time allowance. [Organization File 7PG
 3135; Carrier File 81-87-90]

 (2) Claimant H. H. Sauer shall now be allowed the
 appropriate automobile expense for the two hundred and forty
 (240) mile round trip from Adams, Wisconsin to Eau Claire,
 Wisconsin and eight (8) hours straight time at the trackman's
 rate."

 OPINION OF THE BOARD:
 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds that the Employe and Carrier involved in this dispute are respectively Employe and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 Prior to April 27, 1987, the Claimant was furloughed but was recalled and instructed to report for a physical examination before returning to duty. He was directed to
 PLB 2960 -2- AWARD NO. 133

 report for the examination at Eau Claire, Wisconsin. In previous years, the Claimant had been required to take return to work physical examinations at LaCrosse, Wisconsin. The Claimant resides at Adams, Wisconsin. The Claimant requested pay and mileage for the time and expense involved in traveling to and from Eau Claire, a fine city by most standards.
 The Carrier noted in oral argument at the Board that they changed the traditional location for the Claimant because of a reduction in the number of clinics performing such services. The number was reduced to increase their ability to maintain consistent quality control over the physical examination process. They note too that Eau Claire is only 35 miles further from the Claimant's residence than LaCrosse.
expended in return-to-work examinations is not compensable
 under the rules as written. In fact, an accepted practice
 seems to exist in this case of the Claimant going to LaCrosse
 on a non-compensable basis for return-to-work physicals.
 Beyond this, the Board can't conclude that under these
 circumstnaces the extra mileage, due to reorganizing the
 system for physical examinations, is unreasonable.
 ?LB 2960

 AWARD:

 The claim is denied.

 D. D. Bartholomay Employe Member

 Dated:

 AWARD NO. 133

 GI V~ ernon, Chairman

 M. Humphrey
 Carrier Member