PARTIES) ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA !'it, -..i.LUAY CO":YAAY TO ) DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENAN~;I? 0t; Ot,Y Et-I1'LJYc;E5

 STATEMENT Of CLAIDI:

 1. That the Carrier's decision to perc:~,,ently remove claimants from
 service was unjust because substantial <<:idenue was not introduced
 in the investigation transcript, and even if the Carr.er hid prciven
 the charges against claimants, decisica .;f. penranent removal would
 be excessive discipline.

 'L That the Carrier be directed to rcio.,t:ate claimants to service
 with seniority, vacation, all rights resT:ured and pay for all wage
 loss beginning September 22, 1981 continues forward. u:Ld/err otherwise
 uiade whole.

 F114DINGS: This Public Law Board No. 15.::? finds that I:l:e parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In this dispute the claimants were char,ed with reporting to work under the influence of intoxicants at 6:00 p.m. on September 22, 1981 in Montgomery, Texas. Pursuant to the investigation the claimants were dismissed from the service of the Carrier, and the Organization has filed this claim requesting they be reinstated and paid for all time lost.

 The testimony of record is refreshing. The claimants did not deny that they were drinking. Some admitted they were druid:, _aree of them admitted consuming a half-pint of whiskey, as well as several beers. The claimants did not report for work because they were .trunk.

 The evidence of record indicates that cno of the claimants was upset because his cousin had had a bad exd.:fience the ;:revious Tuesday. There is no record or evidence that the claimants herein were alcoholics, and apparently they just decided to go on a drunk.

 Employees should be aware that this is a serious of:_~:,se and one which cannot be condoned by the Carrier. The claimani:s were not OIL duty, but were in their bunk car and were subject to uuty. They failed to report for duty, and certainly discipline was justified.

 However, in the present case it is the ,:,..t,inion of t1:e Board that permanent dismissal is too severe. 'i;.~.. ~,i.iniorn does not indicate




that an employee is entitled to one fr,.. "drum.." In some instances the first charge of being under the ii:i.t:ence of intoxicants would justify discharge. All four claimant:: tfiould be aerate that a future incident of this type should and proLa".,:y, would result in permanent discharge.

 The Carrier is directed to reinstate the claimants after a six month period of time without pay for time lost providing they have submitted themselves to a rehabilitation ~.;.~>~ram approved by the Carrier.

 AWARD: Claim sustained as per above.

 ORDER: The Carrier is directed to comply with th :,s award within t=rty days from the date of this award.

                                    J: y6ore, Chairman

                                    k- I


                              Uri

                              g"iizat ' on MeLfl er


                              Cart. ier Member