1


seal with hearing officers acting as witnesses as well as "prosecutors and judges". we do not look with favor on the practice of multiple roles, as 'n this case, with an apparent dimunition of objectivity in the investigation. However, on its face, Carrier's actions in processing this case did not violate the agreement or deprive Claimant of due process.

 Petitioner argues further that the Rules do not provide Carrier with the right to prefer charges against an employe relating to an incident which occurred after he `or sneeding some 15 to 20 miles from his work assignment at the time indicat"'_ and marijuana was f traffic violation and the drug charge was later dropped. The Carrier found out about the incident via an anonymous mailing of a newspaper clipping recounting the arrest; the s force.

 Claimant further avers that the incident of the arrest, particularly si-=e the drug charge was d is concluded, therefore, that the sole issue remaining is the penalty assessed for Cla;_mant's early since his work was completed and he had some personal business to attend in a nearby community. It is further argued that the practice of leaving early when work is completed is common in the industry and frequently condoned by Carriers, within l evidence in support of this contention. Finally, it is urged that dismissal is a harsh and inappropriate penalty for the admitted infraction of leaving early.

 Carrier in arguing the appropriateness of the action taken, states that this case involves an obvious violation of Rule G, and that this was raised at the investigation. That Rule provides:

Carrier concludes from the investigation that: "The facts indicate the probability that he in fact had the marijuana in his possession while at Marinette. Even if this is only assumed, however, it is factual that when arrested with marijuana in his possession, he was being paid and was still on duty. Rule G was therefore clearly violated."
                      Docket Number CL-20736


        We do not agree with Carrier's conclusions with respect to the alleged Rule G violation. First, Claimant had left the property and was clearly not on duty, but engaged in personal business when he was arrested; at that time he was not subject to the provisions of Rule G. Furthermore we do not find that the mere possession of marijuana in an employe's automobile, even if the car were on the Carrier's prop-

        erty, is violative of the Rule above, any more than the possession of __

---- - a bottle, or indeed a case of liquor. in the trunk of a car on the -park
 ing lot would constitute a violation of the Rule. The Rule in question
 covers only using or being under the influence of the offending drug
 or alcohol.

        Although Claimant was not charged with falsisying a time claim for the date in question, Carrier was properly exercised by the derelection of duty in his leaving e infraction has been treated severely in some prior cases and awards have supported Carrier action of dismissal; some cases have not encompassed such severe penalty. In this dispute, it is apparent that the discipline was imposed primarily in the light of a charge which was directed with most emphasis to the alleged drug possession and arrest. We do not find that the Carrier has established substantial grounds for the conclusion of guilt on that score. For this reason we think that the penalty of dismissal in this case was excessive and unwarranted, in short an abuse of discretion. It is our conclusion, even though we do not lightly disturb penalties imposed when an


              FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


              That the parties waived oral hearing;


        That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;


        That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and


              That the penalty imposed was excessive,


I
                Award Number 20637 Page 4

                Docket Number CL-20736

                A W A R D


Claimant will be reinstated to the position he formerly held, with seniority rights unimpaired, but will not be compensated for time lost.

                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 11.2- E:cecutive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, :11inoiS, this 7th day of :March 1975.