"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier improperly withheld Mr. R. A. Stevens from service for allegedly providing a urine sample that tested positive for marijuana on May 28, 1993 and continuing until he was permitted to return to service on July 26, 1993 based on a second urine sample provided on June 11, 1993 which failed to show the presence of marijuana (System Docket MW-3189).

(2) .-1s a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Mr.

R. A. Stevens' record shall be cleared of any reference to the

incident involved here, he shall be removed from having to

participate in any random or quarterly testing programs that may

be required as a result of the erroneous urine test and he shall be

compensated for all wage loss suffered during the period of May 28

through July 26, 1993."

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

On May 28, 1993, Claimant was required to submit to a return-to-duty physical exam which included a drug screen. Claimant's drug test was reported as positive for marijuana and he was removed from service. He was returned to service on July 20, 1993, following a second drug test which was negative.

The Organization contends that Claimant never used marijuana and that the positive drug screen was erroneous. The Organization suggests that Claimant's urine sample was mishandled or that the result was a false positive caused by Motrin which Claimant was taking pursuant to his doctor's instructions to manage post-surgical pain.

Carrier maintains that its drug screen was proper. Carrier argues that its documentation, which it provided to Claimant in response to his request, shows the entire chain of custody of Claimant's urine specimen and shows that there were no irregularities in its handling. Carrier further contends that Claimant failed to list any medications that he was taking at the appropriate time for listing them. In any event. Carrier contends, the tests that were used, in particular the Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry test that is used to confirm the results of an initial EMIT test are not susceptible to producing a false positive induced by Motrin.

The Board reviewed the record carefully. We find that there is no evidence that Carrier mishandled Claimant's urine specimen. The documentation of the chain of custody, a copy of which was provided to Claimant in response to his request, indicates no irregularities. Furthermore, we rind that Motrin could not have caused a false positive on the tests that Carrier employed. In particular, Motrin and other substances cause false positives in certain EMIT tests due to problems of cross-reactivity. That is, in an EMIT test, an agent is added to the urine to determine whether drug metabolites will react with the agent. However, in certain tests, other substances may also react with the agent. The GCIMS confirmatory test avoids problems of cross-reactivity because it examines the molecular structure of the metabolites present in the urine specimen, instead of relying on a chemical agent with which the metabolites may react Accordingly, we conclude that the claim must be denied.

AWARD