Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28361
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-28396
 90-3-88-3-189
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brother
 hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific
 Transportation Company (SPTC (WL)):

 Claim on behalf of S. P. Green for reinstatement to service with all time lost and benefits restored, account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly Rule 59, when in letter of December 17, 1986, it dismissed him without affording him all the rights of the Agreement. Carrier file SIG-LA-87-G."

 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 signed a "Conditional Reinstatement" on March 25, 1985, agreeing to reinstatement without compensation and to additional terms. Of these, Claimant agreed to "totally abstain from alcohol and other drugs" and to "submit to random unannounced alcohol and/or drug tests." Claimant signed the Conditional Reinstatement which allowed his return to duty. Failure to continually meet the terms of the Reinstatement allowed Carrier to return Claimant to dismissed status.

 By letter dated December 17, 1986, Claimant was notified that the random urinalysis he took on December 10, 1986, showed positive for marijuana and he was therefore returned to dismissed status.
 Form 1 Award No. 28361
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-28396
 90-3-88-3-189

 This Board is asked to consider whether the Claimant was denied his Agreement rights as provided by Rule 59 when he was dismissed without a fair and impartial Investigation. The Organization does not take issue with the fact that Claimant signed the Conditional Reinstatement, took the urinalysis test, or even that the results were positive, although it disputes that such evidence can be accepted outside the framework of an Investigation. It is the position of the Organization that Rule 59 is explicit and requires a formal Investigation before Claimant can be dismissed.

 It is the Carrier's position that Claimant was returned to duty by the conditions of the signed March 25, 1985 Conditional Reinstatement Agreement. When Claimant faile Carrier's position that no Investigation was required by the Agreement.

 The sole issue before this Board is whether under these circumstances the Claimant can be dismissed from Carrier's service without an Investigation. There are two Agreements before this Board. Rule 59 clearly requires an Investigation and states in part that "an employee ...shall not be disciplined or dismissed without a fair and impartial investigation." The Conditional Reinstatement Agreement allows the employee who has been dismissed to return to duty and has no language which waives a future Investigation.

 We conclude that the Claimant was dismissed with the protection of his rights afforded by Rule 59, either by an Investigation or waiver thereof. We are asked herein the question of whether the same Rule affords Claimant an Investigation when he is returned to dismissed status for violating the signed Conditional Reinstatement Agreement. The signed Agreement between the Claimant and Carrier requires return Claimant to work and Claimant agreed not to use drugs. We find that Claimant's violation allows Carrier to return him to dismissed status without an Investigation, as Claimant had already been dismissed, making Rule 59 inapplicable.

 This Board must always assure itself that its interpretations protect the Agreement rights of the parties. We point to Special Board of Adjustment No. 18, Decision No. 5750 under similar circumstances wherein the Neutral stated:

The Board holds that Rule 59(a) is not the proper vehicle in that a return to dismissed status between Claimant and Carrier is not the same as dismissal. Rule 59 contemplates an Investigation prior to discipline or dismissal. As Claiman Agreement the Claimant had no additional Agreement rights under Rule 59 to an Investigation before being returned to dismissed status. Claimant has been returned to dismissed status for violation of a signed Conditional Reinstatement Agreement.
 Form 1 Award No. 28361
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-28396
 90-3-88-3-189

 The Organization has a right to demand in each case that the return to dismissed status is based on fact. The Carrier must have the facts to support its actions. Herein, because the facts are in the record, the Carrier's action was fully war Public Law Board No. 3783, Award 77; Public Law Board No. 964, Award No. 720).




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J. -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of April 1990.