AWARD N0. 31 Case No. 19

PUBLIC LAW HOARD N0. 1582

'_'.':2IES) ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COLMPAI`'Y
TO )
DijPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

STATEi.'P7NT OF CLAIM: Claim in behalf'of former Trackman Simon P.'
PC1rigli°z, Eastern Division, for reinstatement to his former.
position with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired '
and compensate him for wage loss beginning December 13, 1974 con
ta.r_uin,'^; fori-:ard to date that he is restored to service.

rI"DINGS: This'rublic Law Board No. 1582 finds that, the parties.

1c~reiz are Carrier and Employee within- the meaning of the RailwayLabor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

In this dispute the claimant was discharged from the service of the Carrier for his alleged possession of a narcotic while on duty at 1:orxis, Kansas on December 13, 1974.

Evidence of record indicates that the Division Superintendent asked . for a cigarette, and the claimant handed him a package of cigarettes T:'hich included cigarettes made of marijuana.. Testimony further in- . dicites that the Superintendent requested the claimant to step.. outs'2a, whereupon he teas asked if he knew some of the cigarettes contai. ed marijuana, and the claimant admitted that he know this c;as . tM3 case. The claimant stated h° had found the package of cig:,r- , e:=tcs on a table the night before.

T::0 Or-anization suggests that perhaps entrapment, is involved by t--- Carrier, but there is no evidence to support such a theory.

The claimant had been an employee for approximately 11 years. It _~ difficult to accept the claimant's story that he found the packaSs of cigarettes, but this story is corroborated by other witnessed and-such a story may be true.

E7:ployees in possession of marijuana or other drugs while.subject to duty o_ on duty have, by and large, been discharged by Carriers, arc' ' st_cn discharge has generally been upheld.

Iio;"ever3 this is some doubt in the present case, and it is the-opinion o- t:..e Board that under these circumstances permanent discharge is too ac:>ere in that there is some question whether the claimant vas complc:=ely at fault. If the evidence was completely satisfactory that ti:a clai-:ant knowingly had possession of marijuana, then such :1=aci-. ;lin a vould not be set aside.
PLI3 58~.
Award No. 31
Pajc 2

Thzrefore, it is the finding of the Board that the claimant should ba reinstated with seniority and all. other rights,unimpaired but 7_t': out nay for time lost.

P,T-_RD: Claim sustained as per above.

_CRDBR: The Carrier is directed to comply with this adard within :ii-.Lrty days from the date of this award.

. ces ton J. ` o::re, Chap r 2a

~4

CJrbanization mea:oer

P~I~ - ~,~ - & 41 .v
Carrier Member