i.k:?TIES) ATCH ISON, TOPHMA. AND SANTA .M ?2LUL:vAY COZIPUri TO ) DISPLM) BROTHERHOOD OF IIAINTZ"NANCE OF WAY ,IITLOYEES
TUMIENT OF CLAIM
1. T:iat tae Carrier's decision to remove Plaices Division Traci;.nan C. Camarena from service as result of investigation held December 7, 1931 was injust.

 2. That the Carrier now reinstate claimant Camarena to his former position with seniority, vacation,~all benefit rights unimpaired and pay for all wage loss beginning January 5, 1932, forward and/or otherwise made whole because the investigation transcript does not contain substantial evidence that claimant violated the rules, discharge is wholly excessive and harsh.

 FINTDINGS: This Public Law Boa.-.d No. 1532 finds that the parties ec:.f'-=re Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Hoard has jurisdiction.

 In this disput= the claimant was charged with having marijuana in his possession in a Santa Fe bunk car at Novey, Texas November 17, 1931. Pursuant to the investigation the claimant was found'guilty and was dismissed from the service of the Carrier.

 Special ?gent Billy Pitzer tastitied that on November 17, 1981 he and :1irvin Cain, Division Special Agent, and Curtis Holden, Assistant nivision Special Agent, were in Hovey and inspected bunk car 203534 and inside the bunk car on one of the bunks was an open suitcase with a plastic bag containing some green plant material.

 Special Agent Pitzer also testified there was a card in the bag issued to Carlos Camarena. He further testified that they took the plastic bag containing the green plant material to the Special .,&ant's office in San :Anoelo and through a chemical test determined that it was marijuana.

 Special Agent Pitzar testified that the bunk car involved was owned by the Santa Fe Railroad and-was located on Company property at the time of his .inspection. He also testified there was about one ounce o= marijuana in the suitcase. He further testified that he did rot have a search warrant, but it was practice for the special agents to look in the suitcases if they were open although they did not open suitcases which were closed.


1:_. Clai-1allt taStified that he knew not.".-.- about the marijuana and ~l3 not l3ave his suitcase 0P2n an, tae date in C-estiOn. He also 3u>;=sted that so=sbody could have planted t.'-&e :iarijucna in his suitcase. M1e claimant testified tint he used marijuana but had never used it while on duty Or on Company property.

 The Board is concerned about the tastiaony regarding rdhether or not the suitcase was. open and the fact that Division Special ?gent Cain and Assistant Division Special Vent Holden did not testify concernir.d eiaat was found inside tae bun:: car or whether tae suitcase was open.

 Tae claimant had been employed for four years and tvo months as a trac ....an. T: s use of alcohol or drugs, or the possess-'an o= such on Company property, is a very serious offense. The use of such cars be axtrzmely dangerous, not only to the employee, but to his fallow employees and to the public.

 1.e employees should be cautioned that even the possession of an ounce of marijuana on Company property justifies discaarae, and c=rtainly tae use of marijuana while on dut;7 of while subject to . duty os on Company property justifies permanent dismissal.

 Tae Board certainly does not believe that another employee planted marijuana in tae claimant's suitcase. Therefore the Board finds that there is no justification for setting aside the discipline :which was assessed by the Carrier.

 WMM Claim denied.

                                reston . aoore, c..ai-aan


                                rganization i· er


Dated at Chicago, Illinois 599&ei&~,

May 28, 1982 carrier Member