The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
The Claimant was first employed by the Carrier as an apprentice Machinist on August 23, 1993 and was subsequently promoted to a Machinist. He resigned on January 7, 1996, and was rehired on October 9, 1996.
On October 29, 1997, the Claimant was advised that he had tested positive for marijuana, in violation of the Carrier Rules. He was medically disqualified from service, entered a treatment program pursuant to Carrier's Alcohol and Drug Use Policy, and returned to duty on January 2, 1998 subject to certain conditions. Among those conditions was that the Claimant would submit to periodic drug and alcohol testing for a period of five years, and if he tested positive a second time, he would be dismissed. The Claimant signed the conditional reinstatement, signifying that he had read the conditions and understood that his compliance was required.
On September 17, 1998, the Claimant was drug tested. The test results were positive for marijuana. As a result, an Investigation was held on October 30,1998. The Claimant was subsequently dismissed from the Carrier's service.
At the Investigation Hearing, neither the Claimant nor the Organization challenged the accuracy or reliability of the drug testing procedures. In fact, the record shows that the Claimant requested to have a split specimen tested in a different certified laboratory and that test result, too, was positive. In light of the test results, we find that the Hearing Officer could reasonably reject as inadequate the Claimant's assertion that he was "around people who smoke marijuana." The test results here cannot be ascribed to an unsupported claim of inadvertent passive inhalation of smoke when the alternative explanation for such positive results - that the Claimant used marijuana - was the more convincing explanation on this record. Form 1 Award No. 13620
Accordingly, the Board finds that the Carrier has met its burden of proof to support the Claimants' removal. In his short tenure with the Carrier, the Claimant demonstrated that he was unwilling or unable to comply with the Carrier's drug and alcohol policy even after being given a second opportunity to do so. Unfortunately for the Claimant, he violated the conditions set forth by the Carrier with full knowledge that it would result in his discharge. His claim therefore must be denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.