Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7589
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7361
 2-SLSF-MA-'78



Parties to Dispute:

Dispute: Claim of Employes:







Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

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

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein. .

Form 1

Page 2


Award No. 7589
 Docket No. 7361
 2-SLSF-MA-'78

 Claimant was a machinist apprentice who entered Carrier's service on October 3, 1972. On November 9, 1975 Claimant pled guilty to a charge of selling a controlled substance (cocaine). He was sentenced on December 22, 1975 to five (5) years imprisonment but sentence was suspended by the Court and he was placed on probation for three (3) years under special conditions. The Circuit Court Judge who sentenced Claimant described these conditions thusly:

 "Special conditions of the probation were: (1) Defendant to serve nine months in the County Jail and to report to jail by 5:00 P.M., Monday, December 29, 1975; (2) Defendant to participate in work-release program and to be released from jail at 6:30 A.M. each work day and report back by 5:00 P. M. each work day; (3) Defendant to submit to search of his person and immediate area whether at home, in an automobile, or elsewhere at any time by law officer or probation officer; (5) Defendant to avoid association with anyone he knows or suspects is using, possessing or trafficking in drugs; (6) Defendant to continue counseling with June Kelsay of the Department of Mental Health in Springfield."

 Subsequent to his sentencing and while he was serving his conditional probation Claimant received from Carrier, the following Notice:

 "January 6, 1976
 Springfield, Mo.

 Frederick P. Schuelzky Jr.
 Machinist Apprentice
 Diesel Shep
 Springfield, Missouri

 Mr. Schuelzky;

 Please report to my office at 9:00 A.M. January 12, 1976, for formal investigation to develop the facts and determine your responsibility, if any, in connection with your selling a controlled substance on June 9, 1975, allegedly being cocaine, the possession of which is a violation of Rule 'G' of the General Regulations, Rules, Regulations, Safety Rules and Instructions governing Mechanical Department Employes, Form MP-1 Standard effective March 1, 1957, reading as follows: 'The use or possession of intoxicants or narcotics is prohibited.'
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 7589

Docket No. 7361

2-SLSF-MA-'78


"You are also charged with reporting for work late on November 3, 25, 26, and December 11, 1975, which is a violation of the pertinent portion of Rule 'C' Form MP-1 Standard, reading in part as follows: 'Employes must be alert, devote themselves exclusively to the service, give their undivided attention to their duties during prescribed hours . ...' Your work record for the period June 1, 1975 through December 31, 1975 and your personal record will be reviewed at this investigation.

 "You may have representative as specified by agreement rules. The duly authorized representative of your craft receives a copy of this notice.

 Isl R. H. Strack6

cc: Mr. C. E. Haymes"

 A formal hearing and investigation was held and review of the transcript shows that Claimant admitted all charges contained in the Notice of Hearing and requested leniency and a second chance. No meaningful procedural. objections were raised at the investigation by Claimant nor by his Local Chairman, who represented him. Following the investigation Carrier notified Claimant that he was discharged from service.

 ' The case comes to us solely on the issue of appropriateness of the penalty. There is no factual question cognizable by us because Claimant admitted guilt as charged and no procedural due process question is before us because none was raised. On the transcript, both the sentencing Judge and the Alcohol and Drug Counselor recormnended continuation of Claimant's employment, i.e., leniency by Carrier. Carrier declined to exercize leniency and terminated Claimant. Whether we would have given Claimant a second chance is not pertinent because we are confined to reviewing Carrier's decision and may not set it aside unless it was arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory. On the record before us, we can make no such finding and, accordingly, we must deny the claim.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division




'~o e` fi a ie asc. = Adinin s£i7al"iva` ties