NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-26172
Martin F. Scheinman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) - Northeast Corridor
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The fifteen (15) days of suspension imposed upon Trackman R. K.
Badger for alleged 'VIOLATION OF AMTRAK SAFETY RULES AND INSTRUCTIONS, RULE
#4002' and 'RULES OF CONDUCT, RULE "C"' on September 23, 1983 was arbitrary,
without just and sufficient cause and on the basis of unproven charges (System
File NEC-BMWE-SD-714-D).
(2) The claimant's record shall be cleared of the charges leveled
against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."
OPINION OF BOARD: At the time this dispute arose, Claimant was employed as
a Trackman on its Baltimore Division. By letter dated
September 27, 1983, Claimant was ordered to appear for a Trial in connection
with the following charges:
"VIOLATIONS OF AMTRAK SAFETY RULES AND
INSTRUCTIONS, RULE #4002, which reads in part:
'Narcotic medication, controlled drugs and/or
alcoholic beverage must not be used by, or be in
the possession of any employe while on duty or
within 8 hours before reporting for duty.'
VIOLATION OF NRPC GENERAL RULES OF CONDUCT,
RULE 'C', which reads in part: 'Reporting for
work under the influence of alcoholic beverages
or narcotics, or the use of alcoholic beverages
while on or subject to duty or on company property is prohibited.'
SPECIFICATION: In that on September 23,
1983 at 1:00 a.m. between MP 48 and MP 49, you
were observed to have had alcohol on your breath
during your tour of duty."
The Hearing was held on October 4, 1983, whereupon Claimant was
assessed a fifteen day suspension. The Organization appealed Carrier's
decision. Upon the parties' failure to resolve the dispute on the property,
the matter was advanced to this Board for adjudication.
The Organization contends that Carrier has not substantiated the
charges against Claimant. As such, it asks that the Claim be sustained and
that Claimant be made whole for time lost.
Award Number 26321 Page 2
Docket Number MW-26172
Carrier on the other hand, submits that the charges have been
proven. It points out that Track Supervisor Brown stated, "I detected alcohol
on his breath." Furthermore, Carrier notes, Equipment Engineer Rost
testified, "His breath smelled of alcoholic beverage".
In addition, Carrier notes that Claimant acknowledged having taken a
drink before coming on duty and that Claimant refused to take a blood alcohol
test that could have exonerated him.
Under these circumstances, Carrier submits it properly found Claimant guilty of reporting for wo
September 23, 1983. Therefore, it asks that the Claim be rejected.
The record evidence reveals that Claimant did have alcohol on his
breath on the day in question. Claimant should not have drunk alcoholic
beverages so that while at work, his breath would contain this odor. However,
while Claimant's actions were ill advised, the record does not substantiate
his guilt of violating Rule 4002 or Rule C. Rule 4002 prohibits use of alcoholic beverages while on
reporting to duty.
Claimant testified that he had consumed an alcoholic beverage 10
hours before reporting for work. Nothing in the record contradicts this
testimony. Nor is there any evidence that he possessed alcohol while on duty.
Thus, he is not guilty of violating Rule 4002.
Rule C prohibits an employe from being under the influence of
alcoholic beverages or using same while on duty. However, nothing suggests
that Claimant was under the "influence." At most, the record reveals that he
was "talking constantly." However, Carrier witnesses testified that Claimant
was coherent and that his voice was not slurred. Therefore, there exists no
evidence by which Carrier could conclude that Claimant was under the influence
of alcohol on the day in question. Thus, while Claimant's actions are not to
be condoned, Carrier has not established his guilt of the cited rules. Accordingly, and for the fore
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 Agreement was violated.
Award Number 26321 Page 3
Docket Number MW-26172
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest: ,
ancy Jr/ffe~r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of May 1987.