Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7631
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7177
2-SFr-CM-'78





Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)




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 ox 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. 7631
Docket No. 7177
2-Sfr-CM-'78

Claimant was discharged, on March 3, 1975, following a hearing where . he appeared under the charge of being under the influence of intoxicants while on duty in violation of Rule G.

Our review of the record discloses there was substantial evidence establishing that Claimant was under the influence of intoxicants while on duty at West Colton receiving yard on February 9, 1975 and thus, the charge was proven. We need not again repeat in this decision that this Board looks in disfavor of those employes who risk not only their own lives and safety, but the lives and safety of their fellow employes and the public by being under the influence of intoxicants while on duty. It is a serious offense meriting serious disciplinary action.

Having found substantial evidence against Claimant, we now must consider the appropriateness of the discharge penalty. Carrier, in its presentation to this Board, has attached certain documents which it states are germane to making this consideration. Without addressing that question, we find that since these documents were not made a part of the record of the claim during the handling on the property, we will not consider them. Considering Claimant's previous record, and the fact that this was his first Rule G violation in his almost three (3) years of service, we think that the discharge penalty was too severe. We accordingly order that Claimant b e reinstated, with seniority unimpaired but without pay for time lost. In so doing, we want to impress upon the Claimant the seriousness of violations of Rule G, and remind him that this Board generally does not offer reinstatement to repeated violators of Rule G.

A W A R D

Claim sustained to the extent set forth in the opinion.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
late at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of July, 1978.