Form 1
NATIONAL RAILROAD AuJITS Tr:TUTr BoARD Award No. 8147
 SECOD DIVISION Docket ITo. 8059
 2-srI'-CM-' 79

 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Rodney E . Dennis when a-~rard vas rendered.

 ( System Federation 'do. 162, railway Fnployes'

 DepartmentDepartment, A. F. of L. C. I. of
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

 Dispute: Claim of TF-r-,Dloyes:
( Southern Pacif:i.c Transportation Company

 1. That the Southern Pacific Transportation Com.parz<y (Texas and




?_, That accordingly, the Southern ~% 1978.

Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjwst·.:?en t Board, upon the whole record arid
 all the evidence, finds that

 The carrier or carriers and the e:,i ,)Ioye or em_ployes involved in this dispute are respec tivel;r carrier and e:^?)laye j~rith7 n the meaning of the Rail-may Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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

Claimant., a car-man apprentice at carrier's ?iouston, Texas, facility, ~~,as suspended from service on Decen~)er 30. 177, and discharged from service on March 9, 173. Tic i~..s charac-d. by carrier with a v:i_c:Lation of Ral1e G (possession and use Of a I1:j,rGr:tiC ::ara.;i1~'..~la)_ ~r:i,0;.~' t0 an ~??v2Sti_~'',at7.On into the charge by carr4wcr, cl~i.:a:,nt v,as wrrested; his case ;-.s presented to the Harris County Grand Jury. The Grand Jury returned a Yl0=ci.l_1. e:1 the case and civil charges were dronped. Carrier, however, proceeded with its investigation and subsequenty di sexzar-ed clay.=ant.

 The organization conterrl:; that c7.:;.y·_~ny should not be tried a second time for the sa; :e offense. ire eras not ird-11'eted by the! civil authorities; therefore, he sizo~Wd not a,~;,zyn be tried for the c~.x;:e offense b~,T has e:x:plo~rsr.

 Claimant further contends tlz:.~t carrier is d:i.scr5:r.:Lna';iczg against him because he is a me:IZber of a :ninorit~, group.
 Form 1 Award ITO. 8147
 Page 2 Docke l- No. 8059
 2-S-1-'-C1J1_ `79



2. He was not indicted in civil court on the same charges he is being tried for by the carrier.

 3. The hearing officer in the instant case was an investigator, prosecutor, trial Judge, and annellate jud.Se. Consequently, claimant did not receive a fair and imparti al hearing, as required by Rule 34 of the collective bargaining agreement.

 This Board will address each of these propositions separ~Ltely. The organization contends that Clw:-ant did not receive a fair trial because the individual wno filed the charr;es eras tree setae individual who held the hearing and assessed -the ronalty. -L'h~.s -issue has been addressed in rnunerous awards by all divisl.ona of this Board. It has generally held that a full and fair h-arinis not denied per se just because the same person perfomed T,:1ltirle Y'Oles throu,'hout the grf evince prcnedure. The record of each case mist be Judged b~- 'hi Board before a decision can be rcade that due process -rtes denied. by carrier. The r:2~re fact that rL~altinle roles were assumed by one person does not automatically, result in a findinthat due process '~v'a~ denied. -Y;i o:=1 the record before us, we see no validi4~r in the organization's art;urnent: on this point.

 The organization also contends that claLmant was subjected to double jeopardy because he first appe,,red befor-,, civil authorities and was then tried by the carrier for the swine offense.

 Here, too, the Board cannot support the organization's position. It is well settled in the railroad industry, as well as in most other e:dployeeemployer relati on shies, that cr.i_mwnal proceedings and discipline proceedings under co:Llect7.ve bn.-i.'`;ainin~ af-reer:lent"y.are not deuendenu upon each other. This Board in numerous cases has so stated. The reasons for such a holding have of-ter. been enunc.ated in these aiTards and need not be rereated here. (See Fourth Division ri-v,;ard 3093; Third DivIsion Award 1.232 and Third Division Award 13116 as examples.)

 Finally, the or- anizaticn raised a Taes Lion about the merits of the case. Fran the record before u:;, this Board can only conclude th^.t claimant was in possession of mari.-juana on corl.n-any property. The facts are clear on this point. Carrier-was informed by an anon-mous~ caller that a drag sale was to take place on its property. Srecial investigators proceed-:d to the location, observed clan-rant tall>ing to another person, approached him, found marijuana in his car, and had hire arrested. Carrier has ample justification to conclude that the marijuana found -,.n claimant's car belonged to him. Possession of this di-t?g i's a disc hargeable offense under mule Go
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 8147
 Docket No. 8059
 2-SPI'-Cl-' 79

 The recor? of this case is devoid of any evidence that carrier was engaged in a conspiracy to "gee;," claimant or that claiir-cant eras treated differently than any other e:npl ogees would have been treated had they been found in possession of marijuana on coi~pany property.

 Carrier acted properly in this case. Claimant was given a fair hearing. The record supports carrier's contention that cla.:ir::Int possessed marijuana on company property. ISo evidence of discrirriinati on on any grounds exists in the record.

 A 41 A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Execut3_ve Secretary
 National Rail ro A.d Adjustment Board

NATIOIAL RAIKROAD ADTUSTT,!T\7.L BOARD

By Order of Second Division


~~r a,scu- i;ca:::ruistr~,~;ive iAssi sW,nt

 Dated:`at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of October, 1979.