Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29010
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-29412
91-3-90-3-337
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Carol J. Zamperini when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transpor
tation Company (SPTC-WL):
Claim on behalf of M. K. Griff, for reinstatement to service with all
compensation and benefits restored beginning February 15, 1989, and continuing
until this dispute is settled, a6count of carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as ame
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
By letter dated July 8, 1987, the Claimant was dismissed from service
for a Rule G violation, following an Investigation. Subsequently, the Carrier
agreed to allow the Claimant to return to service on a "conditional basis."
He was to be reinstated provided he could report to work within thirty (30)
days and agreed to the following conditions:
"l. You must totally abstain from alcohol and other
drugs.
2a. You must participate in a rehabilitation program as agreed to with the Employe Assistance
Counselor.
Form 1 Award No. 29010
Page 2 Docket No. SG-29412
91-3-90-3-337
b. You must attend two (2) AA meetings per week
furnishing verification of attendance to Employe
Assistance Counselor D. E. Walsh.
c. You must contact Employe Assistance Counselor
D. E. Walsh.
3. You will submit to random unannounced alcohol/
drug tests.
4. You must receive clearance from the Medical
Department after successfully completing a
Company directed medical examination before you
will be allowed to mark up for service.
5. You must refraiq from failing to protect your
assignment, and failure to report for duty must
be substantiated and verified.
Any violation of the above will result in your RETURN
TO DISMISSED STATUS. The stated conditions are in
effect for a period of two years. If, at the end of
the two (2) year period, there have been no violations of your conditional reinstatement your case
will be reviewed for possible return to unconditional
reinstatement status."
On February 10, 1989, while the Claimant was on a Medical Leave of
absence, the Carrier directed him to submit to a urinalysis test. The test
was positive for cocaine. As a result, the Carrier notified the Claimant by
letter dated February 15, 1989, that he was being returned to dismissed
status.
The Organization filed a claim on behalf of the Claimant. Its contention on the property was that th
Hearing which was guaranteed by Rule 59(a). Furthermore, it asserted that the
Carrier had no right to require the Claimant to take a urinalysis test while
he was on a Medical Leave of Absence. Finally, it argues that the only documentation received by the
The Carrier urges denial of this Claim. The Claimant was afforded a
full and fair Investigation at the time of his first discharge on a Rule G
violation. It was at the discretion of the Carrier that he was returned to
service provided he accept and comply with certain conditions, among which was
total abstinence from alcohol and other drugs. He violated the conditions of
his return to employment and was properly returned to dismissed status.
Rule 59 involves employees prior to dismissal, not to employees who
were reinstated on a conditional basis and then violated those conditions.
Form 1 Award No. 29010
Page 3 Docket No. SG-29412
91-3-90-3-337
The Board concurs with the Carrier in this case. Absent a showing
that there was insufficient proof to support the fact an employee violated the
conditions associated with his reinstatement, an employee is not entitled to
an Investigation. There is sufficient valid evidence in this case to show
that the Claimant violated a condition of reinstatement which required abstinence from alcohol and o
Another condition of the Claimant's reinstatement was the submission
to unannounced urinalysis tests. The Carrier requested such a test when the
Claimant was on a Medical Leave of Absence. Such a leave does not sever the
employment relationship. The Carrier was within its rights to request such a
test under the Conditional Reinstatement Agreement. Once it was determined
the Claimant tested positive for drugs, the Carrier was within its rights to
return the Claimant to dismissed status.
Since the Organization did not raise the issue of the Claimant's
medication on the property there is no way to determine whether or not it had
an impact on the urinalysis test: Since the argument was not raised on the
property, it cannot be considered by this Board.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
"Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of September 1991.