AWARD NO. 436
Case No. 470
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 1582
PARTIES) THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
TO )
DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Carrier's decision to remove former Southern
Division Trackman A. L. Cartrett from service, effective August
31, 1987, was unjust.
Accordingly, Carrier should be required to reinstate claimant
Cartrett to service with his seniority rights unimpaired and
compensate him for all wages lost from August 31, 1987.
FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 1582 finds that the parties
herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway
Labor Act, as amended, and that,this Board has jurisdiction.
In this dispute the claimant was notified to attend an investigation in Temple, Texas on August 26, 1987 concerning his alleged
failure to follow the instructions contained in letters dated
March 24, 1987, April 24, 1987 and July 13, 1987 which were issued
by Dr. R. K. Khuri, System Medical Director, and the claimant's
failure to satisfactorily pass the required medical examination,
and to determine the facts and place the responsibility, if any,
involving possible violation of Rules 2, 3, 11, 14, 15, 26 and
31B, General Rules for the Guidance of Employees, and Paragraph
6.0, Medical Examinations, Page 7, of Policy
of
Use of Alcohol
and Drugs.
The investigation was postponed and was held on August 28, 1987.
Pursuant thereto the claimant was found guilty and was dismissed
from the service of the Carrier.
The Board has studied the evidence and testimony of record. The
claimant had applied for a signalman position in Fort Worth, Texas
on the Northern Division. He took a physical examination, and the
urine specimen tested positive for marijuana.
On March 24, 1987 a registered letter was mailed to the claimant
advising him that he was required to furnish a negative urine
sample within 90 days from the date of receipt of the letter.
The letter was returned unclaimed, and on April 24, 1987 another
registered letter was mailed to the claimant, stating basically
the same information as was contained in the March 24 letter.
The claimant signed for this letter on April 27, 1987.
On July 13, 1987 Dr. Khuri wrote another letter to the claimant
advising him that on July 26, 1987 his 90 days would expire.
Award No. 436
Page 2
Thereafter, on August 14, 1987 a notice of investigation was
mailed to the claimant charging him with failure to comply with
Dr. Khuri's instructions.
The claimant testified that he read the letter dated April 24,
1987, and that Dr. Khuri's office called him and told him what
the letter meant. He testified he did not have any conversation
with Dr. Khuri thereafter during the 90 day period nor did he ask
for any extension of time.
The claimant testified that he took a second examination on August
10, 1987. He stated that he just forgot the date and thought he
was within the 90 days allowed.
The Board has reviewed all of the testimony and evidence of record and finds there is no justification for setting the discipline
of the Carrier aside.
AWARD: Claim denied.
Preston J.~ oore, Chairma
i
~i
/ ~J' Organization Member