PARTIES) THE ATCHISON, TOPE:;A CID SAIN1TA FE RAILWAY MOANY TO ) DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

 STATMMNT OF CLAIa:

 1. That tae Carrier's decision to r=move Plains Division Traclanen
 Clarence E. Gammons, Jr. and Jerris W. Carter from service was
 unjust.

 2. shat the Carrier no3a reinstate claimants with seniority, vaca
 tion, all benefit rights unimpaired and pay for all wage loss be
 Sinning July 22, 1982 continuing forward and/or otlnarcaise made
 whole, because the Carrier did not introduce substantial evidence
 that proved that the claimants violated the rules enumerated in
 their decision, and even if claimants violated the rules enumerated
 in the decision, permanent removal from service is ext=eme and
 'harsh discipline under the circumstances.

 FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 15032 finds that tl=a parties
 here-in are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway
 Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board :.as jurisdiction.

 In^. this dispute the claimants were charged with being intoxicate: and in possession of alcoholic beverages and marijuana while on Company property at the Slaton Depot on July 3, 17:12.

 Special Agent L. D. Boucher testified that the claimants were placed under arrest at 3:18 a.m., and he was called at 3:25 a.m., and the claimants were arrested on Company property (railroad depot). He also testified that the claimants told him when he arrived at the police station on July 3 that they were at the Santa Fe Depot on railroad property when they were arrested.

 Special Agent Boucher further testified that claimant Hammons pled guilty and was fined $70.00 for public intoxication and $45.00 for the possession of marijuana, and that claimant Carter pled guilty to public intoxication and was fined $70.00.

 A11 of the testimony and evidence has been carefully considered by the Board. There can be no question but that the claimants were guilty as charged. However, under the circumstances it is the oninion of the Board that permanent dismissal is too severe. It is the finding of the Board that the claimants should be reinstated


9..ct:.-:iv °_ January 1 , I :V~ with seniority and aims oer r,-S ur_=a7.~c_ired 'bur ·.~ithout ray for tile lost.

 '!aim sustained as cer above.

                        Freston J. ~:oore, Caairman


                          4

                                  . '~.'~: l lr LA r'.

                        0rganizac;cn :-iember


                        Carrier i:;:mcer


                                  v

1_J5_g2-- A_-~L [q8

              CARRIER'S DISSENT TO AWARD N0. 198

              OF FUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 1582


The Carrier is in full agreement with the Chairman's statement "There can be no question but that the claimants were guilty as charged." hbwever, having so concluded, the Carrier is at a complete loss to understand the rationale of the Chairman's statement that "permanent dismissal is too severe."
 The cavalier treatment accorded this serious and flagrant violation (possession of alcoholic beverages and marijuana while an company property) will, no doubt, be regarded by the claimants (and other employes who might be so inclined) as license to disregard the Carrier's rules prohibiting the possession of alcoholic beverages and marijuana on any property.

                                rri em er of FUbli

                                Law Board No. 1582


9150N