PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

        Chicago & North Western Transportation Company


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

      Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it improperly
 withheld Machine Operator T. W. Jacobsen from service from
 April 7, 1987 until April 27, 1987. [Organization File SKB
 4209; Carrier File 81-87-1097

 (2) Claimant T. W. Jacobsen shall now be allowed
 compensation at the applicable rate of pay for all lost time
 from April 7, 1987 to April 27, 1987."

 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.
 The basic facts are not disputed. Prior to April 7, 1987, the Claimant was in a furloughed status and on that date was.assigned a Junior Tamper Operator's position by Bulletin No. 8031. The Claimant reported for duty, worked one (1), day but was then withheld from service pending the
 PLB 2960 -2- AWARD NO. 134

 results of a physical examination and urinalysis. He was also required to attend a one (1) day training session. The Claimant was allowed to resume his position on April 27, 1987. The reason for the delay related to the fact the Carrier's medical director experienced a problem in getting the complete results of the Claimant's physical examination from the clinic in Janesville.
 It is well established that the Carrier has the right to withhold employees from service for physical examination when legitimate reasons present themseleves. One legitimate reason is -- as in this case -- a long absence from duty.
 While this right clearly exists, the process cannot be unduly delayed. When it is, the Carrier is liable for the wage loss such delay causes an employee. The question is whether the delay involved in this case was excessive.
 What constitutes an excessive delay depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this instance, a routine return to work physical was involved. For instance, it didn't involve any unusual illness or referral to a specialist which might reasonably be expected to prolong the process. Thus, it is the judgement of the Board that the process should have been completed no later than April 17.
 Accordingly, the Claimant is entitled to lost wages after this date up to the time of reinstatement.
 PLB 29600 -3- AWARD NO. 134

 AWARD:

      The claim is sustained to the extent indicated in the opinion.


                  Gil-Vernon, Chairman


      1

      D. . Bartholomay M. Humphrey

      Employe Member Carrier Member


      Dated: 5-/9 /99