Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSMI-NT BOARD Award No. 8237
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8094
2-N&W-CM-' 80





Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)




Dispute: Claim of EtTloyes:




















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 Railmay Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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



An investigative hearing was held on August 9, 1977 pursuant to Agreement Rule 37 to determine Claimant's responsibility in violating company regulations governing the conduct of its employees, when he was convicted of a felony in the Circuit Court for the County of, r:Oanohe for distributing a controlled sl.1:bstance. Clwi:"rant ;'rc'.S subsequently foland guilty of violating the cc.::-)wn7 re:,7Laa.tion which eras isued as an operations bullet-in on June 19, 1774 and dismised from service effective August 24, 1977. This regulation reads: "The conduct of any employee leading to conviction of any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude (includne without limitation.,
Form. 1 Award. No. 8237
Page 2 Docket No. 8094
2-N&W-CM-'80

the unlawful use, possession, transportation or distribution of narcotics or dangerous drugs) or of any felony is prohibited." This disposition was appealed on the property and is presently before us for adjudicated review.

In reviewing this case, this Board takes judicial notice of our.recent Award 8205 involving the S?V organiznticn and the same Carrier via. the, dismissal of another employee on analagous charges. We held in that Award that, "the record of the investigation supports the Carrier's finding that the Claimant had indeed been convicted of a felony which was a breach of the regulations. The crime for which Claimant was convicted eras serious. The penalty of dismissal is well within the bounds of reason for cases such as this. The Carrier is not recruired to deal lightly with employees who engage in felonious drug dealing."

Based on the record before us we find no mitigative rationale that would warrant a variant penalty. Claimant's deportment was plainly inimical to the best interests of his fellow employees and palpably detrimental to the safety and welfare of Carrier's operations. Our ruling in Ai~rard 8205 applies with equal fervor here and we will deny the claim.






                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

`_-- R~marie Brasch - Adhinis trative Assistant

Dated 'at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of January 1980.