Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27704
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27966
 89-3-87-3-508
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Stanley E. Kravit when award was rendered.

 (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 Machine Operator L. Harvey for alleged failure to successfully complete drug screening testing was without just and sufficient cause, arbitrary, on the Agreement (System File MW-86-104/457-2-A and X419-93-A).

 (2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be allowed to exercise his seniority."

 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.

On July 27, 1984, the Claimant sustained an on-duty personal injury at Houston, Texas. He returned to work and on August 1, 1984, he was instructed to submit to a drug screening test. On August 3, 1984, the Carrier received a laboratory report indicating that the test was positive for marijuana.

 As a consequence, the Claimant was charged with a violation of the Carrier's Rule G, a hearing was held on August 29, 1984, and, subsequent thereto, the Claimant was dismissed from the Carrier's service. Thereafter, a claim was presented to the Carrier and progressed in the usual manner to the designated officer of the Carrier at the highest appellate level.

 In the meantime, the Claimant enrolled and participated in the Carrier's Employee Assistance Program
On March 14, 1985, the parties agreed to dispose of the claim on the Claimant's behalf by his reinstatement on a leniency basis. The agreement stated in part:
 Form 1 Award No. 27704
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27966
 89-3-87-3-508
 "It is understood that Mr. Harvey has participated
 in the Carrier's Drug Rehabilitation Program and
 has been approved to return to service. Mr. Harvey
 will be required to pass the Carrier's usual re
 turn-to-work physical and may be required to under
 go additional drug screening during the twelve
 month period following his return to service.
 In the event Mr. Harvey's seniority will not allow
 his immediate recall to service, his name will be
 returned to the appropriate place on the seniority
 roster and he will be recalled in accordance with
 the current agreement."

 By letter of March 15, 1985, the Claimant was notified of his reinstatement "with seniority and
In April, 1986, the Claimant was recalled to service. He was tested on April 14, 1986, following which the test was reported as positive for cocaine, opiates and mariju Claim is that, despite Claimant's failure to pass the drug screening test on April 14, 1986, he could not be discharged without benefit of an Investigation.

 The Carrier's position is that a condition of his reinstatement was that he remain drug free, subject to testing upon recall and random testing thereafter. However, a close examination of the letter of March 15, 1985, as well as the agreement of March 14, 1985, upon which it is based, does not support the further contention that Claimant was automatically subject to discharge if he failed to pass his recall physical or any random test thereafter. He was reinstated of these rights is the right to an Investigation if the Carrier seeks to dismiss him from service.

 Although Claimant was given a proper Investigation in 1984, he received no Investigation in 1986 Article 14, Discipline and investigation, a condition of the March 14, 1985 reinstatement agreement, should the Claimant fail a subsequent drug screening test, that agreement should have said so explicitly. See, for example, Award 219 of Special Board of Adjustment 280, submitted by Carrier, where the reinstatement agreement in q "... failure to comply with the conditions as set forth above... will result in (Claimant's) being re service of this Company without recourse." (Emphasis added.) This is the condition lacking in the agreement of March 14, 1985.
 Form 1 Award No. 27704
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-27966
 89-3-87-3-508
 Rights under Article 48, Unjust Treatment, and Article 14 are too
 important to be waived by inference.

 We therefore conclude that the Carrier's failure to conduct an Investigation after March 14, 198 in Part 2 of the Statement of Claim. He is, however, subject to the normal physical examination and drug testing requirements of Carrier for an employe who has been out of service for an extended period.

        Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of February 1989.