Award No. 11
 Case No. 11

Org. File 077-18-Yed
Co. File 011-221 (W)

Public Law Board No. 1922

PARTIES  TO DISPUTE: United Transportation Union (Switchmen)
                  and Southern Pacific Transportation Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim is made for Switchman W. J. Walsh, OF Oakland Yard, as follows: 1. Loss of earnings beginning January 7, 1977. 2. Reinstatement to service unrestricted.  3. In the event Walsh is not re- turned to service that he be afforded the 3-man Doctor Board procedure as outlined in Agreement VDMI-320,

FINDINGS: Claimant, a switchman for over 25 years with a very good record of service, was removed from his position on January 7, 1977, because of "back problems." He subsequently was returned to Carrier's service but with restrictions.

This action was taken when Carrier's Chief Medical Officer concluded, on the basis of claimant's physical examinations at St. Joseph's Hospital in San Francisco, that claimant lacked mobility due to a back condition. Claimant objects to being placed in a restricted classification and has submitted reports of his own physician, Dr. John Mason, in support of his position. However, Dr. Mason's reports show that claimant has restricted range of motion and flexibility of the back, neck and trunk and at various times has required treatment for back pain. It is significant that Dr, Mason acknowledges in his report that "I do not know the job specifications or physical ability for this man's position as switchman.'

As Petitioner points out, Agreement YDM 1-320 of September 14, 1959, provides for a three-doctor board to determine whether a switchman should return to duty "where a question arises' as to his physical fitness to do so. In the present case, however, there does not appear to be any real question regarding claimant's physical condition. Nor has persuasive evidence been presented to show that claimant nevertheless is able to perform the specific functions of switchman. The fact that he has diligently attended to his duties in the past does not prove that Carrier can rely on him to continue to be a safe and injury-free switchman.

Where all the medical evidence is substantially in accord with respect to claimant's physical condition and no showing is made that the employee can nevertheless perform unrestricted work, the September 14, 1959 Agreement does not come into play. Here there is no dispute that claimant suffers from a back malady and Carrier's conclusion as to his physical ability to handle switching assignments is unchallenged by evidence and does not appear to be arbitrary.

AWARD: Claim denied.

Adopted at San Francisco, California, I ec, PI a

Harold M. Weston, Chairman