Raymond R. Hawkins

Chairman and Neutral Member


E.R. Kostakis W.R. Caseholt
 ,· Employee Member Carrier Member

        PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


                                  District No. 19 International Association of Machinists_ and Aerospace Workers AFL-CIO -'

- and
 - Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

        STATEMENT OF CLAIM:


- 1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (hereinafter referred
                to as the Carrier) improperly witheld.machinist R. Jennings

- (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) from service from
                April 11, 1984, until the present time.


            2. That, accordingly, the carrier be ordered to restore claimant to

- service with seniority and service rights restored, with
                restoration of any monetary loss claimant suffered while being

                out of service.


        FINDINGS OF FACT:


-. This Board finds that the partie$ herein are carrier and
        employee within the meaning of 45 USC 153, Second, and it has

        jurisdiction of the dispute that follows.


                Claimant R.O. Jennings worked as a machinist at the carrier's

        diesel facilities in Kansas City; Kansas.. On April 10, 1984, he was

        instructed by letter from the master mechanic to obtain the necessary

        forms from the carrier and to report to occupational Health Service,

        specifically to Dr. E.B. Kinports for a physical examination. Claimant

        did not comply with his instructions, therefore on the following day the

        master mechanic advised claimant he was being witheld from service until

        he did comply._ -


        On May 6, 1984, the organization filed, on behalf of Mr. Jennings, a continuing claim beginning April 12, 1984. In its original form, the claim was based solely on an alleged violation of Rule 32(a), the discipline rule. On appeal to a higher level, the claim on June 14,

        ~i 1985 was progressed on an additional issue, the allegation that claimant was not given a reason for carrier's requesting the physical exam.

Award No. 2
 Page 2

 The agreement appeal process was unsuccessful and the dispute was referred to this Board for final determination. Hearing was held in Omaha:'Nebraska. on May 6, 1986, both parties filed briefs and oral arguments were heard.

 With respect to issue one above, awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board and PL boards recognize the right of management to require an employee to undergo a physical examination when there is reasonable cause. Under these circumstances the discipline rule is not applicable. This principle is recognized in the Award 13126 cited by the appellant on page 4 of his submission. .

        The above .raises issue two, did the carrier have reasonable

cause to require claimant to undergo a physical examination? The record
 shows that this issue was first raised in conference on June 14, 1985,
 when the organization asserted claimant was not gitren.a reason for being
 sent -
 to a doctor for a special examination (employee's exhibit O, page 1). In the carrier's letter dated July 9, 1985. it denied the

 organization's allegation and attached a statement signed by two
 supervisors saying they advised claimant of the reason on April 10, 1984( ,
 when they gave claimant the letter directing him to undergo the .
 examination. This document.is probative evidence relevant to the issue
 here. The organization dismissed the supervisors' statement as merely
 self serving and given some fifteen months following the notice.
 Nevertheless, the organization did not raise the issue until its June 14,
 1985 conference and it is hardly in a position to challenge the `
 timeliness of the statement. The statement is prima facie evidence which
 the organization's only attempt at rebuttal was the personal opinion of a
 person lacking:~.first hand knowledge of the incident.

 The action of claimant relieving himself through his clothing and his explanation for doing so is not the type of employee conduct expected to be encountered in the daily work environment of a railroad - shop. This abnormal behavior of claimant is reasonable cause for requiring him to be medically evaluated.

 Upon a review of the entire record herein, it is the finding of this Board that carrier had reasonable cause to direct claimant on April10, 1984 to submit to a physical examination. Even though carrier's action. may be termed "unilateral", it was not unjustified, arbitrary, capricious or abuse of discretion.

                                                          l

                                                        q ~-~ 3 -


      Award No. 2

      Page 3


      AWARD:


              The claim herein is denied.


                                            a on . Haw ins n and Neutral Member


' For the IAM _ For the Carrier -
 President a Assistant Director ~~
 Directing General Chairman Labor Relations .

 Albuquerque, N.M.
 July -:4 , 1986