Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29145
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29529
 92-3-90-3-543
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau

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

1. The Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau acted in an arbitrary, capricious, unjust manner and in violation of the current Schedule Agreement when it dismissed F. H. Ripley from its service, effective March 30, 1989.

 2. The Bureau shall now be required to immediately reinstate Claimant F. H. Ripley to his former what he could have earned including, but not limited to wages, expenses, overtime, holiday pay and c discharged. Further, the Bureau shall pay all medical expenses and for the cost of a replacement policy for health and welfare and life insurance."

 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.

The Claimant has a seniority date of May 13, 1959, and at the time of the incident precipitating his dismissal, he was working as Traveling Agent with headquarters at San Antonio, Texas. On March 30, 1989, Claimant was working alone, performing an annual audit ["test weighing"J at the Elgin Butler Brick Company plant located in Elgin, Texas. An employee of the Brick Company reported to her superior that she believed Claimant was exhibiting signs of being under the influence of alcohol. The superior, who concurred with the employee's observation, then directed Claimant to leave the premises immediately and notified the Carrier's Kansas Supervisor. He then notified Claimant's Supervisor, the General Agent, who suspended Claimant as of the close of business on March 30, 1989.
 Form 1 Award No. 29145
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-29529
 92-3-90-3-543

 By letter of March 31, 1989, Claimant was notified to appear for a Hearing, and was charged with the following:












Following a Hearing held on April 12, 1989, Claimant was notified of his dismissal from service by letter dated April 20, 1989. The dismissal was appealed up to and including the highest officer designated to handle such matters. In the process if the appeal, documentary evidence was provided by the Organization concern:zg Claimant's successful completion of an Intensive Outpatient Program on Mar_h 19, 1990, following an admission on February 5, 1990. The Carrier continued to decline to reinstate Claimant, and the matter remains unresolved.

 Because of the nature of Claimant's job, and the reduction of supervisory staff to whom he was suppo immediately to the events leading up to Claimant's premature departure from the Elgin Butler Brick C:mpany plant. Accordingly, Claimant was not required to submit to any medical =est for the presence of alcohol in his blood at the time he was asked to leave the Brick Company's premises.

 The Organization presented testimony in Claimant's defense from persons who associated with Claimant at breakfast preceding his visit to the Brick Company plant, and at dinner following that visit, stating that Claimant appeared "perfectly fine,' "courteous," and "professional" in his demeanor.

 Given the nature of the customer complaint, it was not unreasonable for the Carrier to withhoid him from service pending Investigation. Even if, arguendo, the evidence of Investigation was viewed as inconclusive, Claimant acknowledged an alcohol muse problem and has taken steps to rehabilitate himself. Accordingly, despite the failure of the Carrier to subject Claimant to appropriate tests at :ze time of the complaint, the evidence before us does not lend itself to exoneration of the Claimant.
 Form I Award No. 29145
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-29529
 92-3-90-3-543
 The Board is persuaded, however, that this is an appropriate case for
 reinstatement on a "last chance" basis without backpay. The conditions of
 this reinstatement include Claimant's good faith participation in the Car
 rier's Employee Assistance Program, passing a physical examination, and
 restriction of his seniority to areas in which his work is more directly
 supervised, until such time as the Carrier may feel confident of his ability
 to resume his former assignment.

 Finally, it should be noted that the decision of the Board in this case is sui generis because of the peculiar facts surrounding this particular incident and, therefore, will not serve as precedent in future cases.






Attest:
        Nancy J. D r Executive Secretary


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