Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12081
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11907
 91-2-90-2-9
 The Second 'Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Donald E. Prover when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (CSX Transportation, Inc. (formerly Louisville and
 Nashville Railroad Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the CSX-Transportation, Inc. (formerly Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company) violated the controlling agreement effective September 1, 1943, as amended, in particular but not limited to Rule 34, when Carrier unjustly upheld the September 11, 1985 dismissal of Electrician N. T. Williams in an unfair and partial hearing held Tuesday, August 23, 1988, including Carriers failure to comply with Public Law Board No. 3762 sustaining Award No. 2 adopted July 24, 1985.

 2. That accordingly the CSX Transportation, Inc. (formerly Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company) be ordered to reinstate Electrician N. T. Williams to service with all seniority rights and benefits unimpaired and compensated for all wages lost in order to make the employe whole.

 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.

Claimant was an electrician that had been employed by the Carrier in the Radnor Shops, Nashville, Tennessee. He was dismissed June 27, 1983, following an investigation on June 7, 1983. Subsequently a claim was submitted to Public Law Board 3762. Public Law Board 3762 issued an Award on July 24, 1985, reading, in part, as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 12081
 Page 2 Docket No. 11907
 91-2-90-2-9
 "Based on all of the information before this Board,
 it is our decision to reinstate Claimant to his
 former position with seniority intact but without pay
 for lost time or benefits. This reinstatement is on
 a last-chance basis and carries with it the condition
 that Claimant enroll in Carrier's Employe Assistance
 Program, that he continue in the day-to-day program,
 that he remain alcohol and drug free, and that he
 maintain regular time and attendance.
 Claimant should be aware that if he fails to meet the
 requirements of this award, he will most assuredly be
 permanently removed from Carrier's service."
 On August 8, 1985, the Claimant submitted to a urine drug screen in
 connection with his return-to-service physical examination. A laboratory
 analysis made by International Clinical Laboratories showed a positive finding
 of "cannabinoid," commonly referred to as marijuana. The method used in the
 analysis is called an "Emit" test. On September 11, 1985, the Claimant was,
 notified he was permanently removed from Carrier's service. The Employees
 took exception to this ruling and submitted a claim to the Board. Second Divi
 sion Award 11507 stated in part, as follows:
 "The Carrier had no right to not afford the Claimant
 an investigation after it refused to return him to
 work after his physical examination. This Board low
 orders that the Carrier immediately convene an in
 vestigation into the action taken by the Carrier in
 refusing to return Claimant to work after his rein
 statement by Public Law Board 3762 and after his
 failure to pass the physical. At that investigation,
 Claimant shall be permitted to present all evidence
 of the inaccuracy of the urinalysis, as well as any
 other evidence which he feels supports his right to
 reinstatement and which he was not allowed to present
 at the time of his dismissal."

 In accordance with the forequoted directive the Carrier advised the Claimant under date of August 2, 1988, to attend an investigation. The letter reads, in part, as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 12081
 Page 3 Docket No. 11907
 91-2-90-2-9
 At this investigation you shall be permitted to pre
 sent all evidence of the alleged inaccuracy of the
 urinalysis, as well as any other evidence you feel
 supports your right to reinstatement.
 You are responsible to arrange for witnesses and/or
 representation, if desired."
 Following the investigation held on August 23, 1988 the Claimant was
 notified under date of September 16, 1988, as follows:







The Employees have presented numerous arguments in this case. We shall address them individually. First, the Employees argue that the Carrier did not provide Claimant with a fair and impartial investigation and that the Conducting Officer acted as accuser, judge and jury. It is true that the same Carrier Officer charged the Claimant, acted as Hearing Officer and affirmed the discipline assessed the Claimant. However, our review of the investigation testimony reveals that the investigation was fair and impartial. The conduct of this Carrier Officer was beyond reproach: he in no way acted so as to prejudice the Claimant at any time and always acted impartially towards the Claimant. See Second Division Awards 8888 and 8423 and Third Division Award 24207 for Findings regarding Carrier officers serving multiple roles in a disciplinary proceeding.

 The Employees stress the fact that the test results from August 8, 1985 were originally reported as negative and then subsequently reported as positive. This is true, however, the original report to the Carrier was based on a telephone conversation and this was corrected when the doctor at Clinical Laboratories received a written copy of the results of the drug screen through the mail. We give more credence to a written report than to a telephone conversation, therefore conclude the Claimant tested positive to "cannabinoids" on August 8, 1985.
 Form 1 Award No. 12081
 Page 4 Docket No. 11907
 91-2-90-2-9

 The Employees argue that the Emit test (used in testing Claimant) is not reliable and submit numerous articles questioning the reliability of such tests.

 While the Employees question the reliability of the Emit test given the Claimant on August 8, 1985, they at the same time submit as evidence a report of a negative drug screen test the Claimant had on November 19, 1985. The November 19, 1985 test was at the same place as the August 8, 1985 test, i.e., at International Clinical Laboratories. Claimant at the investigation, in answer to a question as to what type of test he had on November 13, 1985, stated, "The same test that I guess that the Carrier had."

 Until it is conclusively shown that Emit tests are 100% unreliable we do not believe it would be proper for us to ignore or not accept the results of such tests as evidence unless there are other factors involved that would cause us to do so.

 Accordingly we are concluding that the reports of both the August 8, 1985, and the November 11, 1985, tests were accurate. However, because of the time lapse between tests, (approximately three months), we cannot accept the November test as evidence that the August 8, 1985, test was not accurate. We are sure the Claimant was well aware of the conditions under which he was reinstated by Public Law Board 3762, i.e., "that he remain alcohol and drug free." Therefore, when the Claimant received the results of the August 8, 1985 test, if he thought that there was an error in the results it was incum-low bent upon him to challenge or question such results immediately, not three months later.

 The Employees argue that the Carrier should have called the doctor from the International Clinical Laboratories as a witness. The Employees were well aware of the issues that were involved in the case and made no effort to arrange for the doctor's presence at the hearing or to request prior to the hearing that the doctor be called as a witness. We do not find in this instance that the failure of the Carrier to call the doctor as a witness is a procedural defect. As indicated above we concluded that reports of both drug screen tests were accurate.

 We find that the Carrier complied with the orders of Second Division Award 11507. We also find that the evidence introduced at the August 23, 1988 investigation proved that the Claimant violated the requirement set forth in the Findings in Case No. 2 of Public Law Board No. 3762, i.e., he did not remain drug free following his reinstatement. It is our conclusion, therefore, that Carrier's dismissal of the Claimant was justified and warranted.
 Form 1 Award No. 12081
 Page 5 Docket No. 11907
 91-2-90-2-9




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        ancy J. -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of July 1991.
 I
vo