AWARD N0. 326
Case No. 360
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO, 1582
PARTIES) ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
TO )
DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
STAVrEMENT OF CLAIM: That the Carrier's decision to dismiss
essrs. C. iccard and D. Moore from its service on June 28,
1984, on charges not sustained by the hearing record was in
violation of the current Agreement between the Parties, said
action being unjust and in abuse of discretion; That the Carrier
be required to reinstate Messrs. C. W. Pickard and D. Moore to
their former positions with seniority and all rights restored
unimpaired and compensation for all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS:
This Public Law Board No. 1582 finds that'the parties
erein are Carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.
in this dispute Claimant Pickard was employed as an extra gang
laborer in 1981 and as a machine operator in 1982. Claimant
Moore was employedUy the Carrier as an extra gang laborer in
1976 and as a machine operator in 1984.
On June 14, 1984, the claimants were sitting in a 1976 Mazda
;,ihich was parked on the Carrier's property near the gang's outfit
cars in Varceline, ?Missouri. The claimants were confronted by
the Trainmaster and a Special Agent. The two men did not identify themselves but, instead, the Special Agent reached for a bag
setting in one of the claimant's lap. A scuffle ensued and the
Special' Agent identified himself by
unsnapping his
holster and
instructing the claimant to lie against the car and spread his
legs and submit to a search. The Carrier's officers confiscated
the bag. The Trainmaster contacted the Carrier's operator, who
called the Marceline City Police. The Marceline City Police
took the claimants into custody.
By letter dated June 22, 1984 the Carrier's Superintendent notified the claimants to attend a formal investigation scheduled for
June 28, 1984. '1°ne claimants were charged with being in possession of and/or use of a controlled substance on Carrier property.
One of the claimants did not appear as scheduled, and the investigation was postponed for one hour until both claimants were
present.
The Union contends that the testimony of the Special Agent and
the Trainmaster is irrelevant for the reason that the claimants
did not have a Union representative at the time. The Organization
PLB - 1582
Award No. 326
Page 2
contends there is insufficient evidence to establish that the substance was marijuana. The claimants were dismissed from the
service of the Carrier.
Special Agent Dale testified that both claimants admitted to him
the marijuana belonged to them when he talked to them at the
Police Station. He also testified that he asked Claimant Pickard
for consent to search the car and Claimant Pickard advised him he
couldn't because there was more marijuana in the car. The Special
Agent stated he then obtained a search warrant for the car and
found more leafy green substance in the back window, under the
front seat, and in the glove compartment. He testified the material was later laboratory tested by the Missouri Highway Patrol and
verified to be marijuana.
The claimants testified they were sitting in the car listening to
the radio before going to work and did not know that marijuana
was in the car. The Board has studied the transcript o£ record
and the evidence submitted. The evidence is sufficient for the
Carrier to find that the claimants were guilty.
As a matter of record, the Special Agent's testimony regarding
what he was told by one of the claimants does not constitute hearsay testimony. Hearsay testimony would be the Special Agent
testifying to what someone other than the claimants told him,
such as a police officer or another individual who was. not present
to testify.
Under the circumstances there is no justification for setting the
discipline aside. .
AWARD: -Claim denied.
w
I 7 i'~ ,
- w
it
restou ., Moore, Chairman
. (~ r
Union Member
Date at Chicago, Illinois
~.
i m,
August 19,1985