PARTIES) THE ATCHISOid, TOPEKA AND SANTA Fl: 4AILWAY CObFPANY TO ) DISPUTE) BROTiiERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY LfIPLO'YES

 STATEI,aWNT OF CLAIM: That the Carrier's decision to remo·ac! Plains
 Division Tracrmen J. R. Ramirez and hi. A. Gonzales from service
 was unjust; That the Carrier now reinstate Claimants Rawirez and
 Gonzales with seniority, vacation, all benefit rights unimpaired
 and pay for all wage loss as a result of investigation held Oove«i
 ber 7, 1934 continuing forward and/or otherwise made whole, be
 cause the Carrier did not introduce substantial, creditable evi
 dence that proved that tae Clai:aaILts violated the rules e71:=,lerat~
 in their decision, arid even if C1aLnauts violate;l Liia rulers <u.11:::
 erated in the decisiou, permanent re_aoval from service is exti'~':^e
 and Harsh discipline under the circumstances.

 iI11U_IL`Tv:_i:1_'tiS Public Law BOar.l No. : =`J~ _in.'As t:lat the `_?:7.`Ia'::~ it.=re7.11 are Carrier and employee within clie weaning of. the: !.:i,;.fia_ Labor Act, as amended, and that this iioara _las jurisdiction.

 In this dispute, the claimants were- notifie.l to attend- t1:.' io'r":.'.al.
 investigation in Lubbock, Texas, Nove:ou'ler 7, 1934, to -
 their responsibility concerning the alle,ed use of :aarijur:na whiiE-
 on company property during the period of Sel.)tenber 24 t _ro,.~a ucto
 ber 26, 196:+. Pursuant to the investigation, the claimants %rere
 found guilty and discharged from tae service of the Garrier.

 Both claimants appeared for the investigation and nad a rep_-esant
 ative present. The claimants denied smoking marijuana at any time
 a
 Another crew member, Glenwood Marbur;er, t=stified that "Le ob
 served the two claimants smoking marijuana while melnbers of Gunk;
 54 almost every day. He testified that he was familiar witi: mari
 juana and it could not have been tobacco. He testified t:lat they
 had smoked one going to and from work and several times w?:iie t1Ley
 were out on the track.

 Benito Rios testified that he was a trackman with Gang 54 and that he observed the two claimants smoking a "joint" between the period of September 24 and October 26. He testified that he was -positive that it was marijuana. He further stated that he said to Mr. Gonzales that he should not be smoking them. Mr. Gonzales asked if he could smell it, and he stated that he could.

 The transcript also reveals that two other fellow emplo'yeeG signed statements that the claimants were smoking marijuana while on dsty Those statements were not admitted in evidence, and properly so. This is a serious charge, and the claimants should have the right of cross examinatioi.. Those statements will not be considered by the Board.

                                          Page 2


There is no evidence that the co-eamployees had any uislika for claimants herein, and their evidence is clear and cunvincing.

                                              AWARD: Claim denied. a:


                                  _. , :: 1 ::84

                                  r ! , l: ,-1.


                          Yres ton ,J ./'Moore, Char man


                          Unior'. i?em er


                              c,' i.e:m yr


Dated at Chicago, I11. December 17, 1984