Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11565
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11418
88-2-87-2-59
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Soo Line Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Soo Line Railroad Company violated the current agreement,
in particular Rules 35 and 36, when it unjustly withdrew Electrician G. M.
Willeford from service as of March 29, 1986 and subsequently unjustly dismissed Mr. Willeford on May 1, 1986 for alleged violation of Rule G (as amended).
2. That the Soo Line Railroad Company be ordered to reinstate Electrician Willeford with all of his seniority and other rights unimpaired, compensate him for all lost wages anal benefits, and expunge the record in connection with this matter.
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 employes 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant, an Electrican with eight years of service, was dismissed
from service after Hearing on April 7, 1986 for violation of Carrier Rule G.
On Saturday March 29, 1986, Claimant was scheduled to start work at
4:00 p.m. The Mechanical Foreman testified that when Claimant arrived late
for duty (approximately 4:25 p.m.), "His eyes were glassy. He had a very
large smile on his face,...his general appearance appeared unkempt ...,he
appeared a little disheveled,...his speech was slurred ...he appeared to be in
a drunken stupor." The Mechanical Foreman testified that Claimant's speech
became more noticeably slurred. Further, according to the Mechanical Foreman,
Claimant told him that he was "high" and was drinking vodka.
Form 1 Award No. 11565
Page 2 Docket No. 11418
88-2-87-2-59
Another Foreman testified that he entered the shop locker room and
observed Claimant "sitting on a bench. He appeared to be intoxicated...
sitting with his head down... [hjis eyes looked glassy..."
Claimant denied that he told the Mechanical Foreman that he was high
or drinking vodka. However, Claimant testified as follows:
"ER: Well, did you have anything to drink at all on
Saturday?
GW: No, sir. Friday night yes, but Saturday, no.
ER: You drank quite a bit on Friday night then?
GW: Yes, sir, I did.
ER: What time did you quit drinking on Friday night?
GW: 1:00.
ER: And the condition that Tom Vierling indicated and
Abernathy, that you were glassy eyed and slurring
your words, was that from the night before?
GW: Evidently."
We find substantial evidence in the record to support the Carrier's
conclusion that Claimant violated Carrier's amended Rule G which states, in
pertinent part that "Employees must not report for duty under the influence of
any alcoholic beverage, intoxicant, narcotic, marijuana, or other controlled
substance or medication
...."
The observations made by the Foremen of Claimant's condition; Claimant's statements to the Mechanical Foreman that he was
high and drinking vodka and Claimant's admission that his condition was "evidently" a result of his drinking "quite a bit" the previous night amount to
substantial evidence that placed Claimant's conduct within the prohibition of
that rule. Under the circumstances, holding Claimant out of service was not
improper.
In light of the above, we cannot say that dismissal was either arbitrary or capricious.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Form 1 Award No. 11565
Page 3 Docket No. 11418
88-2-87-2-59
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: ~ _ _
-'Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of August 1988.