(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The dismissal of Trackman F. J. Blada, Jr. for alleged "violation of Rule 'G "' was arbitrary, without just and sufficient cause and on the basis of unproven charges (System File D-11-1-302).

(2) Claimant F. J. Blade, Jr. be accorded the benefits prescribed in Agreement Rule 19(d).

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was dismissed for alleged violation of Rule
"G" after an investigation. He had six months service with Carrier.

The initial question before us is whether or not there was substantial evidence adduced at the i of the hearing indicates that there was testimony, unsabutted, that Claimant's breath smelled of alc the evidence that the contents of the jug had been analyzed and found to contain "ethyl alcohol". Claimant, of course, denied that he had been drinking though admitting at the investigation that he had taken a drink out of the jug is question. The contradiction in the evidence relates to the contents of the thermos jug; the testimony of the two Carrier officers that it contained wine as against the report from the testing laboratory that it contained ethyl alcohol. Regardless of the apparent discrepancy, it is quite evident that the jug did contain an intoxicating beverage of some type and further that Claimant did drink from it, while on duty. We must conclude therefore that on a prima facie basis Carrier has established a violation of Rule "G". Petitioner's contention that there was no indication of how the thermos got on the property with the alcohol in it is not relevant to the basic issue of the dispute.

In the light of the implications of the particular rule violation and Claimant's short service w for disturbing Carrier's penalty: it was not arbitrary or capricious.







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





        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of November 1976.