PARTIES: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES TO DISPUTE: CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION C0.


2. Trackman R. G. Paulson shall be compensated for all wage loss
 suffered in addition to any seniority he may have gained while
 improperly held out of service.
 FINDINGS:
 Claimant R. G. Paulson was employed as a trackman by Carrier. When
 Claimant was recalled to service in April, 1986, he was required to
 undergo a physical exam which included a drug and alchohol screening and
 as a result the Claimant was withheld from service between April and
 August of 1986. On September 1, 1986, Claimant requested a hearing which
 was held on September 10, 1986, and Claimant was advised that the
 hearing:

 "revealed no unjust treatment of you by the Management of the Eastern Division Engineering Department or the Medical Department of the Chicago & North Western Transportation Company." The Organization asserts that the Carrier improperly removed the Claimant from service and filed this claim for all time lost. This Board has reviewed the record in this case and we find that Rule 56 contains specific procedures which an employee must follow if he disagrees with the Carrier's decision to disqualify him on the grounds of a physical examination.

                                              924- 13D

      Rule 56 states:

      "RULE 56 - PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS . .


      If an employe should be disqualified upon examination by the Company's physician and he feels that such disqualification is not warranted, the matter may be handled directly with the Director of Labor Relations

      Non-Operating . If the matter is not disposed of by such handling, the following will apply:


          (a) The employe involved, or his representative, will select a physician to represent him and the Company will select a physician to represent it in conducting a further physical examination. If the two physicians thus selected shall agree, the conclusions reached by them will be final.


    (b) If the two physicians selected in accordance

with paragraph (a) should disagree as to the
 physical condition of such employe, they will
 select a third physician, to be agreed upon
 by them, who shall be a practitioner of
 recognized standing in the medical profession
 and a specialist in the disease or diseases
 from which the employe is alleged to be
 suffering. The Board of Medical Examiners
 thus selected will examine the employe and
 render a report within a reasonable time, not
 exceeding fifteen (15) calendar days after
 selection, setting forth his physical
 condition and their opinion as to his fitness
 to continue service in his regular
 employment, which will be accepted as final. . .
 Consequently, according to Rule 56, if an employee is disqualified
 upon examination by the Company's physician, he may select a physician
 to represent him and that physician will perform a second physical
 examination. The Carrier can select another physician and if there is
 a disagreement between the doctors as to the physical condition of the
 employee, a third physician is selected. That clear cut procedure
 which is spelled out in detail in Rule 56 was not invoked by the
 Claimant in this case after the Carrier physician found him to be not
 qualified to return to work.
 The Claimant argues that he was wrongfully withheld from service

                            2

                                                -q Zq-I 3o


because he was not suffering from the problems diagnosed by the Carrier's medical staff. However, once that disqualification has been done, the burden shifts to the Claimant to assert his rights pursuant to Rule 56. The Claimant did not properly exercise his rights in this case and therefore the claim must be denied. Rule 56 governs this situation and the Claimant has ignored the rule.

 AWARD
      Claim denied.


                        Neutral MembeJ


wrieremb Orgabization Member

 Date: NOVV2 3 9933

 3