NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Locket Number MW-25941
John W. Gaines, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
"1. The dismissal of Welder Helper D. Shipman for alleged violation
of Rule 'G' was arbitrary, capricious, unwarranted and on basis of unproven
charges (System File C-5-831.
2. The Claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other
rights unimpaired, his record shall be cleared of the charge leveled against
him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."
OPINION OF BOARD: Allegedly violated was the prohibition as set out in
Maintenance of Way Rule "G":
"...Employees must not report for duty under the influence of any
alcoholic beverage, intoxicant, narcotic, marijuana or other
controlled substance, or medication, including those prescribed
by a Doctor, that may in any way adversely affect their alertness,
coordination, reaction, response or safety."
Carrier's decision to dismiss Claimant followed a formal hearing at
which Claimant testified in his own behalf and Carrier introduced documentary
evidence including a hospital blood test report and had two Roadmasters
testify in Carrier's cause. Claimant's service record was considered on the
property.
The decision of dismissal for violation as found, was set forth in
Carrier's letter to Claimant dated April 14, 1983. Up to that time Claimant
was being held out of service, pending investigation.
We do not go on this record condoning alcoholic usage in any amounts
such that there can be a measurable blood alcohol level in the worker when he
reports for duty. Nor do we discourage the Carrier from erring on the side
of safety when Carrier sensed some likelihood that the worker was reporting
for work partially intoxicated. Guilt, in instances where it can be found,
of being under the influence when subject to duty constitutes a most serious
offense in the vital matter of railway safety.
We find just and sufficient cause to warrant Carrier in the present
instance to take the precautions it has taken in the interests of extreme
vigilance as to safety, notwithstanding the inevitable result of this instance
whereby Claimant has been held out of service for the period. There were
reasonable and justifiable doubts raised in the matter by the fact of the two
Award Number 25628 Page 2
Locket Number MW-25941
Roadmasterstestifying alike that each had smelled alcohol on Claimant's
breath, and by the chemically determined fact of the blood alcohol test yielding
a positive reading that he had consumed alcohol. As a consideration which
was brought out from the service record aforementioned, Claimant was noted to
have lost seven months' time in 1980-1981; he had received severe discipline
for infractions of other sorts, resulting in dismissal and, later, reinstatement
on basis of leniency but without pay for the time lost in 1980-1981.
The testimony of the Roadmasters and the confirming report of the
blood alcohol test constituted substantial evidence that Claimant had, to say
the least, consumed alcohol prior to reporting for work.
Based upon the record before the Board, we find that discipline was
warranted, but that permanent dismissal was excessive. Claimant has accumulated
nine years in time of service and, in that time, has qualified for and received
promotions as noted in his record.
We will award that Claimant be reinstated with seniority and all
other rights unimpaired. However, we will not award any compensation for
time Claimant may have lost while out of service.
The Organization's position as to time limits is not well taken in
connection with
the above specified date of Carrier's dismissal letter. The
point appears to have been dropped in the final submissions.
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 discipline was excessive.
Award Number 25628 Page 3
Locket Number MW-25941
AWARD
Claim sustained in accordance with the opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Divison
Attest:
Nancy J. Dever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of September 1985.