unjustly assessed discipline of dismissal on Clerk B. Eggebrecht on

March 4, 1998.

(b) Claimant Eggebrecht's record be cleared of charges brought against her on October 21, 1997, and that she be reinstated to the service of the Carrier.

with the provisions of Rule 36(e)."

On June 2, 1995, the Claimant, a clerical employee with the Carrier since November 7,1968, tested positive for THC on a return from non-occupational disability examination. The Claimant entered EAP and was returned to service on July 20,1995. The Claimant's return to service was conditioned as follows:

"During the first three years following your return to work you will, from time to time, be required . . . to report to our medical facility for further testing in order to demonstrate that you are no longer using THC, Cocaine, or other prohibited drugs. Should a further test be positive or you fail to report for follow-up testing as directed, you may be subject to dismissal by your department for failure to follow proper instructions."

On a follow up test given on September 30, 1997, the Claimant tested positive for marijuana. Investigation and dismissal followed.

Substantial evidence supports the Carrier's determination that the Claimant violated the conditions of her return to service in 1995. The Claimant was not to test positive for prohibited drugs. However, the Claimant tested positive on a follow up test.

Nor do we find that dismissal was arbitrary. The Claimant was advised that should she test positive for drugs she "may be subject to dismissal." That is precisely what happened.

Invoking the saying "[t]he quality of mercy is not strain'd ... ,"and keying upon the return to work condition that if she tested positive the Claimant "may be subject to dismissal" [emphasis added], the Organization argues that dismissal was not required and that, given the Claimant's long service with the Carrier of almost 30 years, dismissal should not have been imposed. We disagree.

The Organization is seeking leniency from this Board. It has long been held that the Board does not have the authority to grant leniency- only the Carrier can do that. The standards that guide us in this case are that substantial evidence supports the Carrier's determination that the Claimant engaged in misconduct and the imposition of dismissal was not arbitrary. The Carrier has made those showings.

If anything, this case points out the scourge that drug usage has become in the American workplace. Here, an employee with almost 30 years of service succumbed to