Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27081
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27238
 88-3-86-3-546
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Charlotte Gold when award was rendered.

 (Brnth,,rhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

 (1) The dismissal of Grinder Operator G. Martinez for alleged '... violation of Rules 565 and 566 ... on May 29, 1985, and ... absence without proper authority ... on June 4, 5 and 6, 1985.' was without just and sufficient cause and on the basis of u BN-11-85).
(2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, his record shall be cleared of the charges leveled against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


Claimant was a Grinder Operator at the Pueblo Rail Welding Plant. On May 29, 1985, he informed his Supervisor that he had been convicted of possession of cocaine and would be jailed for the offense. (Claimant ultimately served a 60-day sent substance.)
Claimant was requested to submit to a urine drug analysis. A report issued on June 4, 1985, indicated a positive analysis for Cannabinoids. Claimant began his jail term June 4, 5, and 6. On June 6, he was cited for allegedly violating Rules 565 and 566 of the Burlington Northern Railroad Company's Safety Rules and for being absent without proper authority on June 4, 5, and 6. Following a hearing conducted in absentia Carrier's service.
 Form 1 Award No. 27081
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27238
 88-3-86-3-546
 Burlington Northern Safety Rules 565 and 566 read as follows:
 "565. The use of alcoholic beverages, intoxi
 cants, narcotics, marijuana or other controlled
 substances by employees subject to duty, or
 their possession or use while on duty or on
 company property is prohibited.
 566. Employees lust not report for duty under
 the influence of any alcoholic beverage, intoxi
 cant, 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."
Safety Rule 570 states:


The Organization first maintains in its Submission that Claimant was denied a full and fair hearing when its request for a postponement at the investigation on June 14, 1985, was denied. Claimant had hoped to be released temporarily to attend the investigation, but his request was not approved by the judge before going on vacation. Carrier counters that the Organization could not offer any date certain as to when Claimant would be available and that, by his own actions, waived his right to confront his accusers.
This Division has long supported the position adopted in Second Division Award 8315 that "inc from work for good cause." (See First Division Awards 12021, 14692, 18244; Second Division Awards 4689, 6606, 7067; Third Division Awards 12992, 18816, 19568.) As noted in Award 3 of Public Law Board 2206 involving the same parties, "the situation in which Claimant found himself was not 'unavoidable' and he cannot be exculpated by such a bootstrapping argument."
The Organization further argues that Carrier cannot conclude that Claimant was under the influence of Cannabinoids because the accuracy of the immunoasseys for detection of marijuana are questionable and Carrier presented no evidence to show that the testing was performed by a qualified toxicologist. This Division has re Form 1 Award No. 27081
 Page 3 Docket No. NW-27238
 88-3-86-3-546

 all relevant documents exchanged on the property, and finds that the Organization's questioning not, for the most part, arise until the Organization presented its Submission to this Division. The Failure to bring up these issues denied both parties a:i opportunity to explore this avenue if discussion at an earlier date. Tt is a we11-accepted precept within the railroad industry that matters not addressed during the on-propertv development ,,f a claim are not admissible before the National Railroad Adjustment Biard. We so hold here.

 Our review of the recird Leads us to conclude that, given his arrest for possession of a drug, Carrier had sufficient reason to require Claimant to submit to a urinanalysis, and that there was a reasonable basis for Carrier to find that Claimant was in violation of Safety Rules 565 and 566. Under the circumstances, Carrier had a reasonable basis for its action. (See Award 34, PLB 2529.)

 The transcript of Claimant's investigation reveals that he did not have permission to be absent on June 4, 5, and 6, 1985. Thus, he was absent without proper authority. Given the extent of Claimant's Rules violations, the discipline imposed can be considered neither arbitrary nor capricious.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest.
        Nancy J er,- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of May 1988.