CARRIER HELD EMPLOYEE OUT OF SERVICE AFTER CARRIER MEDICAL EXAMINER CERTIFIED HIM O.K. FOR DUTY (146)

First Division Award No. 23658 (Peterson)

"The record in this case fails to support Carrier's action in withholding Claimant from service for the period in question. Claimant had been apprised that all he needed to return to work following his release from the VA hospital was a report from his treating physician and a Form 38 from a company doctor. He complied with these instructions and had in fact received a Form 38 from a local Carrier physician certifying that he would be able to work on December 14, 1963. Certainly, if Carrier's medical department had sufficient reason to have wanted Claimant withheld from service pending evaluation of any medical data which he had presented on his return to duty it was incumbent upon the Carrier's medical department to have so alerted or informed its local physician."

Third Division Award No. 29925 (Fletcher)

"Carrier is correct that it is not an Agreement violation to withhold an employee from duty because of job-related stress. Withholding an employee from service because of physical and/or mental considerations is not considered a disciplinary suspension. (See First Division Award 23989). However, the facts involved in those cases differ from the facts involved in this case, Claimant was withheld from duty after he had been found fit for duty by a Carrier medical officer. The examination Claimant submitted to on January 12, 1990, did not find any physical or mental impairments which would make Claimant unfit for duty. It is medical conclusions made as a result of this examination which should be the basis of a determination of Claimant's ability to return to duty, and not an allegation an attorney may advance in the pursuit of a tort which should control. Accordingly, there being no evidence that Carrier had a medical basis for withholding Claimant from duty, the claim must be sustained."

Public Law Board No. 6076, Awd. 22, Case 22 (Lynch) (UTU/CSX Trans.)

"The action returning claimant to active service promptly following the medication evaluation was proper. The record is clear that during the time claimant was withheld from service he applied for and received Sick Leave Allowance."