December 21, 1992 to Carrier's physician for a "medical evaluation." Claimant reported as directed, but the physician declined to examine Claimant because he had not been released to return to duty by his attending physician. Claimant's attending physician was a Dr. Bchakjian.

On February 12, Carrier advised Claimant to report to Carrier's physician for a "return to work evaluation" on February 25, 1993. Claimant reported as directed but, when asked to provide a urine specimen for a drug screen, refused to do so. Consequently, on March 24, Claimant was advised to report for an Investigation on April 14, 1993, concerning alleged insubordination arising from his refusal to submit to the drug screen. The Investigation was postponed to and held on May 11, 1993. On May 27, 1993, Claimant was advised that he was dismissed from service.

The Organization contends that Carrier had no authority to require Claimant to submit to a drug test on February 25, 1993. The Organization concedes that Carrier's policy provides for a drug screen as part of a return-to-duty physical and that a returnto- duty phy fourteen days. However, the Organization contends that the February '_5, 1993 evaluation could not have been a return-to-duty physical because Claimant still had not been released by Dr. Bchakjian. The Organization observes that Carrier's witness conceded as much. Therefore, according to the Organization, the dismissal may not stand.

Carrier maintains that Claimant admitted his refusal to provide a urine specimen for a drug screen and, consequently, admitted that he was insubordinate. Carrier contends that Claimant was aware of its drug testing policy, was aware that drug tests were required as part of return-to-duty physicals and was aware that refusal to submit to a drug screen would be grounds for dismissal. Carrier further argues that its drug testing policy has been upheld as reasonable on numerous occasions and that refusal to submit to a required drug screen has been held to be grounds for dismissal. Furthermore, in Carrier's view, if Claimant believed that he was not being treated justly, the proper course of action would have been to submit to the drug test and file a claim through the grievance procedure.

Carrier's policy provides for drug testing under the following circumstances:

pre-employment physical examinations; required periodic and return-to-duty physical examinations; before return to duty and during a follow-up period after a disqualification for any reason associated with drug use; and executive physical examinations.

Carrier's policy further provides that an employee who tests positive for illegal drugs will be withheld from service and

°. . . be required to provide a negative drug test within 45 days at a medical facility to which the employee is referred by Conrail's Medical Director, in order to be restored to service. . .

The only provision of Carrier's drug testing policy that arguably applied to the instant case is the provision requiring a drug screen as part of a return-to-duty physical examination. However, Carrier's policy concerning return to duty from occupational disability requires a written release from the employee's attending physician. It is undisputed that, as of February 25, 1993, Dr. Bchakjian had not released Claimant to return to duty. On December 4, 1992, Dr. Nutter opined that Claimant was able to return to work. However, there is no evidence that Dr. Nutter was Claimant's attending physician. ` Thus, the evaluation conducted on February 25, 1993 could not have been a return-to-duty exam.

Generally, employees faced with directives that they believe are improper are expected to comply and seek redress through the grievance procedure. Prior Awards, however, establish that a refusal to comply with an improper drug testing order may not result in discipline for insubordination. See Third Division Award 27802; First Division Award 23884. Accordingly, the claim must be sustained.

1 We note that only the third page of Dr. Hutter's three page report was made part of the record, thereby making it difficult to determine exactly what role Dr. Nutter played. However, from the portion of the report contained in the record and Claimant's testimony, it appears that Dr. Nutter evaluated Claimant's condition on behalf of the Carrier. In any event, there a nothing to suggest that Dr. Nutter was Claimant's attending physician.

AWARD