This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
On February 2, 1994, Claimant sustained an on duty injury. He was off work due to this injury when, on March 29, 1994, Carried notified Claimant that he had been qualified to return to service and instructed him to report for a drug screen within two weeks of his receipt of the notice. Claimant did not report for such a drug screen. Consequently. on April '-2. 199.1. Carrier notified Claimant to report for an Investigation on April 27, 199.1, concerning his alleged insubordination and failure to comply with Carrier's drug testing policy. The Hearing was postponed to and held on May 26, 199.1. On May 31. 199.1, Carrier notified Claimant that he had been found guilty of the charges and that lie %-.as dismissed from service.
The Organization contends that Claimant's dismissal was arbitrary and unreasonable. The Organization maintains that, at the time he was ordered to report for the drug screen, Claimant had not been released by his personal physician. The Organization maintains that Carrier violated its own policies which required release by the employee's personal doctor to qualify to employee to return to service. Consequently, in the Organization's view, the directive that Claimant report for a drug .creep was improper and cannot serve as the basis for his dismissal.
Carrier contends that Claimant admitted that he received the directive to report for a drug screen and that he failed to do so. In Carrier's view, Claimant clearly was insubordinate and dismissal was justified.
The Board has reviewed the record carefully. Carrier directed Claimant to report for a drug screen as part of a return to duty physical. Carrier's own policy for returning an employee to duty following an occupational disability of 15 days or more required a written release from the attending physician and examination by Carrier's doctor. The record is clear that, at the time Carrier directed Claimant to report for a drug screen, his attending physician had not released him to return to duty. On the contrary, Claimant's attending physician wrote Carrier advising that Claimant had yet to complete his rehabilitation program and was not ready to resume his duties. Form 1 Award No. 31954
The issue in this case is identical to Third Division Award 3153.1. In that Award we sustained the claim of an employee who had refused to take a drug screen where he had been directed to do so allegedly as part of a return to duty physical. even though his attending physician had not released him. Because we find Third Division Award 31534 controlling, the claim will be sustained.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.