Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29126
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29519
 92-3-90-3-458
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Kansas City Terminal Railway Company

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

CLAIM N0. 1
a. The Kansas City Terminal Railway Company acted in an arbitrary, capricious and unjust manner and in violation of Rules 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 among others of the Scheduled Agreement when it dismissed Russell B. House effective March 31, 1989.

 b. The Company shall now be required to immediately reinstate Claimant R. B. House to service an overtime, benefits and Health and Welfare costs that resulted from this improper termination.

 CLAIM N0. 2
a. The Company acted in an arbitrary, capricious and unjust manner and in violation of Rules 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 among others of the Scheduled Agreement when it reaffirmed its dismissal of Russell B. House from its service effective March 31, 1989.

 b. The Company shall be required to reinstate Claimant Russell B. House to its service and compensate him for all lost wages including overtime, benefits, Health and Welfare costs that result from this improper termination."

 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.
 Form 1 Award No. 29126
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-29519
 92-3-90-3-458
 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
 thereon.
 Claimant was ordered to present himself for a physical examination.
 The examination included a drug screen which tested positive. On the basis of
 this result he was cited for an Investigation, which was held on March 16,
 1989. Following the conclusion of the Investigation, on March 31, 1989, Claim
 ant was notified that he was terminated. However, one day before Carrier's
 termination letter was issued, on March 30, 1989, Claimant was cited for
 another Investigation. The second Investigation was conducted on May 16,
 1989. Under date of May 26, 1989, Carrier issued its decision reaffirming its
 previous dismissal. Both Claims were progressed on the property as provided
 in the Agreement. By Agreement between the Carrier and the Organization they
 were consolidated into one Docket for consideration by this Board.

 We have examined carefully the transcripts of both Investigations and conclude that adequate evidence was developed in each to support the conclusion that Claimant was in Rules H and L (Claim No. 2), as charged. In fact, Claimant's own testimony supports this conclusion. We have also examined the transcripts, as well as the record of handling on the property, and conclude that Claimant's procedural and due process righ breached so as to flaw the Investigation or the discipline assessed.

 With regard to the level of discipline assessed, termination, it is noted that Claimant has been warned or disciplined on seven previous occasions for violations of the same Rules as that involved in the two Claims here. Accordingly, we are withou will be denied.






Attest.
            1=50 019

      'Nancy a -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1992.