PARTIES ) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
TO )
DISPUTE ) SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
EASTERN LINES
AWARD

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:






(MW-87-37)
OPINION OF BOARD:
Claimant is a laborer with sixteen years of service. As a result of charges dated January 28, 1987, hearing held on February 4, 1987 and by letter dated February 10, 1987, Claimant was dismissed from service for violation of Carrier's Rule G.
On January 19, 1987, while working in a normal fashion and without prior warning, Claimant fell to the ground and exhibited jerking, incoherent and unconscious seizure-like behavior for several minutes. Claimant was taken to a medical clinic for examination and testing. Although Claimant denies engaging in conduct prohibited by Rule G, based upon the results of the administered tests, Claimant was dismissed for violation of that rule. Further evidence shows that on April 18, 1983, Claimant suffered a similar seizure and was withheld from service until October 18, 1984.
According to the record, Claimant has not exhibited an unusual amount of absenteeism Further, Claimant is considered by Roadmaster D. W. Morrow as a good
PLB 3558 Case No. 62 L. C. Gray Page 2 worker. Finally, after the dismissal, Claimant entered and completed a rehabilitation program.

Under the unusual circumstances presented and considering Claimant's lengthy service with the Carrier, we believe that although substantial evidence supports the

Carrier's conclusion that Rule G was violated, dismissal was excessive in this case. The question of suitability for return to service must be resolved as set forth below.


AWARD:

Claimant shall be returned to service with seniority and other benefits unimpaired but without compensation for time lost. Return to service is conditioned upon Claimant's passing a return to service physical examination. Return to service is further conditioned upon Claimant's examination by a physician of his own choosing regarding the existence of seizure disorders. If Claimant's physician finds no seizure disorders present, then the Carrier, by its designated physician, shall have the option of examining Claimant for the

existence of seizure disorders. Should Claimant's and the-Carrier's physicians disagree on the diagnosis concerning the existence of seizure disorders, the dispute shall be resolved by a neutral qualified physician agreed upon by Claimant's and the Carrier's physicians.







Houston, Texas
August 31, 1988