PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION
VS.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (WESTERN LINES)
ARBITRATOR: John L. Easley
DECISION: Remanded
DATE: November 20, 2001
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Los Angeles Service Unit Conductor G. R. Earns for pay for time lost and vacation credits commencing on January 31, 2001 until returned to service.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On January 31, 2001, Conductor G. R. Earns was examined by his physician, a Dr. J. Sofia who stated as follows:
“I feel strongly that this patient may do his regular railroad work, which I am very familiar with, without any restrictions. I think that he can return to work immediately based on today’s physical examination of his knees”
This report was forwarded to the Carrier, and seemed to die there without any action being taken on their part. Subsequently, Mr. Earns’ local chairman wrote the Carrier requesting a decision on their part or the implementation of a 3-Doctor Panel in line with the current schedule of working Agreements. The partisan members continued to handle the dispute and were unable to come to a resolution, therefore, this has been brought to the attention of this Board for a decision.
The facts are scarce, but it is the view of this Board that Local Chairman Hudgirs had the proper solution when he tried to invoke the use of Article 59 of the Union Pacific Western Lines Trainmen’s Agreement, which reads in pertinent part:
“Section B.
1. A trainman who has been removed from his position or restricted from performing service to which he is entitled by seniority because of his physical condition but who desires that the question of his ability to meet prescribed standards of physical fitness be determined before he is permanently removed or restricted can invoke the following provisions.
2. A special panel of doctors consisting one doctor selected by the Company and one doctor selected by the trainman or his representative will be convened. The two doctors will confer. if they cannot agree on the physical condition of the trainman, they will select a third doctor specializing in the disease, condition, or physical ailment from which the trainman is alleged to be suffering.
3. Such panel of doctors will fix a time and place for the trainman to meet with them for examination. The decision of the majority of said panel of doctors on the trainman’s physical fitness to remain in service or to have restrictions modified will be controlling on both the Company and the trainman. This does not, however, preclude a Reexamination at any subsequent time if the trainman’s physical condition changes.
4. The doctors selected by the Company and the trainman or his representative will be specialists in the disease or ailment from which the trainman alleged to be suffering.
5. The Company and the trainman will be separately responsible for any expense incurred byte doctor of their choice. The Company and the trainman will each be responsible for one-half of the fee and expense of the third member of the panel..”
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD:
The Board, upon the whole record and on the evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted by agreement of the parties; that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing.
DECISION:
This case is remanded back to the parties for handling under the provisions of Article 59 B. 1. This Board will retain jurisdiction over this dispute.
PLB-6247 AWARD NO. 300
PAGE 2
AWARD:
Claim Remanded.
