C:\AWARDS\OUT\SBA171-8.htm

C AWARD N0. 8

0 CASE N0. 8

P

Y SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 171

BROTHEFXOOD OF RAIWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,

FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES

vs

GREAT NORTHERN RAM-TAY COMPANY

STATM14T OF CLAIM:

~IClaim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee, that the Carrier violated the rules of the current agreement,

"1. 4dhen on July

17, 1955

they removed from service one Konsta Valley, an ore dock employe at Allouez, Wisconsin, account failure to pass physical examination.

'02.

That the Carrier now be required to compensate Konsta Valley at his regular rate of pay for July

17, 1955

and each and every day thereafter that he was not allowed to perform service account of this violation.

FINDINGS: This Special Board of Adjustment upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that;

The carrier and the employe or employee in this dispute are respectively carrier-and employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.

This Special Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein. The claim in this-case involves Konsta Valley, an ore dock employee who operates a crane at Allouez, Wisconsin, asking reinstatement to service with all pay lost from July 17, 1955, due to the Carrier wrongfully withholding him from service. The claimant failed to pass a periodical physical examination required by the Carrier. The examination was given by Dr. R: C. Webb on June 18, 1955. The claimant was notified by the carrier on June 24, 1955 that he could no longer be continued in service due to high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes and a hypertension heart. The claimant had received periodical examinations and from April 2, 1941 carrier's medical record shows that the claimant had been warned to do something about his weight, and that April 1, 1946 the claimant was informed that he had high blood pressure and treatment was recommended. Since April 19, 1950 the claimant has been under the care of his personal physician Dr. H. E. Bakkila who had given him a comprehensive examination and treatment and whose dia;nosis stated that the claimant had rtessential hypertension-?. The claimant has been periodically r

Award No. 8

treated by his personal physician up to July 21,

1955,

on which date his personal physician, Dr. H. E. Bakkila still diagnosed hypertension and was treating him for obesity. The claimnt was also examined by a Dr. McGinnis, who stated on

July 27, 1955

that he had treated the claimant for hypertension. The claimant was also examined by a Dr. Charles J. Picard, whose only statement is that the claimantps blood pressure ranged between 160 and

170

systolic and

diastolic.

Rule 18 of the effective agreement is a discipline rule, and has no application to a request for return to service under the facts in this case.

The carrier contends that this claimant has never submitted any medical evidence which is in conflict with the findirgs and opinion of its medical examiner.

The only conflict in the evidence in this Pass 1.3 in the findings of Dr.

Bakkila on

J'~:'.;r

21, 19:'5 tL.at in

his

opinion !she (the cl-eOLaant) is able to continue

in his usual o~,-:upati-)r.i? "here is no conflict in the dia-rioais of the carrierfs

medical examir::_· rte;,:: the

d-I

of the clauisntps personal physician that the

claimant is suffering from hY=oertension. Therefore., when Dr. Bakkila states that

the claimant is ablo ',-,o cor'"',.hue in his usual. cccva·,..n there is no showing that

this doctor knew waa t

phyrOl.oal

requirements were nec:;zsary to operate a crane or

that he knew the occupation of this claanant.

The carrier must not only take into consideration the health and welfare of this claimant. but the wslfare of all of its employees working in the vicinity of the crane and tire public that might come in ;.a that vicina.ty.

The Bcard finds that there is no conflict as to the physical well being of this claimant between the diagnosis given by his personal physicians and the diagnosis given the carrier by its medical examiner. Therefore, the agreement was not violated by the oarrier9s action herein.

Claim denied.

s Thomas C. Beley

Thomas C. Begley, Chairman /s/ C. A. Pearson C. A. Pearson, Carrier Member s F. A. Emme F. A. r~mme, Employee Member Signed at St. Paul, Minnesota, this 10th day of April, 1957.