Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28118
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27836
 89-3-87-3-346
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John E. Cloney 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 Claimant J. N. Vialpando for alleged '... failure to pass physical examination of February 21, 1986, as provided for in Letter of Understanding dated February 3, 1986, account positive results from drug screen ....' was arbitrary, capricious, on the basis of unproven charges and in violation of the Agreement (System File D-86-15/MW-14-86).

 (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 because of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 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 held seniority as a section laborer dating to August, 1976. By letter of November 12, 1985, he was dismissed from service. On December 13, 1985, he was reinstated on a leniency basis subject to passing a physical examination which was conducted on December 17. By letter of December 19 Claimant was informed an illegal drug was detected in the drug screen portion of the physical examination and he was ordered to contact the Employee Assistance Counselor.
 Form 1 Award No. 28118
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27836
 89-3-87-3-346
 On February 3, 1986, Claimant and the Local Chairman signed a Letter
 of Understanding stating:





On February 10, 1986, Claimant was informed he was reinstated and would be notified when his seniority permitted a return to work. He was recalled on February 19, 198 that Claimant had tested positive for cannabinoids in the drug screen portion of the examination. On March 13, 1986, Claimant was notified to attend a formal investigation on March 17, 1986, account a positive drug screen. On March 26, 1986, Claimant was notified he was dismissed.




Form 1
 Page 3

 Award No. 28118
 Docket No. MW-27836
 89-3-87-3-346

 The Organization argues no evidence was presented to establish why an investigation was not held until March 17, approximately 24 days from the date of the test, whereas Rule 28 requires investigation "ordinarily within ten (10) calendar days." As we read Rule 28 it required investigation be held within thirty days of February 27, 1986, the date Carrier received the drug screen report. Even if the time began to run from the date of the test, the investigation would have been conducted within thirty calendar days.

 Although arguing Rule 28 was not observed by Carrier, the organization contends "Rule 28, Discip
employe, not those who are furloughed Division Award 11412:

 In answer we quote Second

 "The fact that Claimant was not actually working when the physical examination was given does not, as the Organization argues, require a sustaining of this claim under the rationale that while Claimant was on furlough he was not subject to the Carrier's Rules. It is wellestablished that is not severed by the fact that an employe is in a furloughed status . . . .

 The Organization also argues there was no proof of impairment. In an August 7, 1986, letter the General Chairman argued Carrier was assuming:

 "the test in question is qualitatively and quantitatively accurate and reliable, that the chain of specimen custody was untainted by specimen mishandling and that the test is capable of correlating physiological and psychological effects of marijuana with levels of urinary metabolites reported therein. You are in serious error."

 In furtherance of this position the Organization submitted numerous articles from scholarly Journals and other authoritative sources dealing with rates of error in testing, possibilities of lack of care in the chain of custody of samples, and rel not having been presented on the property.) This Board views arguments regarding the efficiency, rel result of some accident in which he had been involved or solely as part of a routine physical. After a leniency basis reinstatement Claimant and the Organization had signed a Letter of Understanding acknowledging he was subject to random testing for a specific period in order to return to service and was subject to removal if the test was failed. We do not imply that care and safeguards need not be take Form 1 Award No. 28118
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-27836
 89-3-87-3-346

 chain of custody or the results of the test. We do believe that having entered into the specific testing agreement, Claimant cannot attack the concept of testing conducted as a case involving enforcement of a return to service agreement, not as a typical drug screen matter.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: i
 Nancy J ever - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of September 1989.