NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Locket Number MS-25057
Thomas F. Carey, Referee
(W. D. Divine
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(S. D. CR-0142-D) that:
(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement effective February 1,
1968, as amended by the Interim Rules effective January 26, 1976, particularly
Rule E-1, when it assessed discipline of dismissal on W. D. Devine, Crew and
Ehgine Dispatcher, Jackson, Michigan.
(b) Claimant Devine's record be cleared of the charges brought against
him on November 21 , 1980.
(c) Claimant Devine be restored to service with seniority and all
other rights unimpaired, and be compensated for wage loss sustained in accordance
with the provisions of Rule F-1(e). Claimant also to be made whole for any
money he was required to spend for medical and hospital services, or other
benefits which would otherwise have been covered under Travelers Group Policy
GA-23000."
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed as a Crew Caller with approximately
thirteen years of service with the Carrier at the time of
his dismissal. The record indicates that on November 20, 1980 Patrolman M. R.
Jackson, Conrail Police Department observed Claimant in Car 4 between the F. P.
Miller building and the roundhouse area. According to Patrolman Jackson, the
claimant appeared intoxicated and was given a sobriety test, which he failed.
The Carrier removed Claimant from service pending an investigation.
It was held on December 8 and 12, 1980 in
connection with
the following charge:
"Your violation of Rule 2028 of the Conrail Safety Rules for Station
Employees in that you were under the influence of intoxicants while
on duty as Crew Caller, assignment #TR-10, from 3:00 PM to 11:00PM on
Thursday November 20, 1980 at Jackson, Michigan."
Several witnesses testified on the Claimant's behalf. W. F. Ward
testified as follows:
"Q. You stated that you had some conversation between the hours
of 9:00 PM and 11:00 PM with Mr. Devine, is that correct?
A. Yes sir.
Mrs. McAlpine, Claimant's relief testified as follows:
Award Number 24941 Page 2
locket Number MS-25057
"Q. Mrs. McAlpine, can you say for the record, that during the
meeting you had with Mr. Devine, as to whether or not he was or
was not under the influence of intoxicants?
A. There was no indication at all - no.
Q. In the conversation you had with Mr. Devine, did he appear
normal?
A. He appeared normal to me."
The entire record has been reviewed. It establishes that Patrolman
Jackson personally observed the Claimant. He "detected a very strong odor of
alcoholic beverage emanating from Mr. levine." After observing the Claimant
for two hours to confirm his suspicion and noting his condition worsened, the
officer then gave the Claimant a sobriety test, which the Claimant failed.
As a Patrolman, Officer Jackson was in a position to make a reasoned
judgment as to Claimant's intoxication on the evening of November 12, 1980.
Moreover, the Carrier was free to credit Patrolman Jackson's testimony over
other witnesses who indicated that the Claimant did not appear inebriated.
Thus the record establishes with a sufficient degree of reliable evidence, the
Claimant's guilt of the charges specified.
The use of intoxicants while on the job is a serious offense. As was
noted in First Division Award 20442:
"It is generally recognized that a violation of Operating Rule G
which prohibits the use of intoxicants or narcotics by employees
subject to duty is proper cause for dismisal."
This is particularly true here since Claimant's past disciplinary
record indicates a prior dismissal for being under the influence of intoxicants
while on duty. He had only been reinstated to duty on August 22, 1978. Accordingly,
under these circumstances, the Carrier's decision to dismiss the Claimant will
be sustained.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to
this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds and holds:
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 Agreement was not violated.
Award Number 24941 Page 3
Locket Number MS-25057
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Nancy J. ver - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of August 1984.