PARTIES) THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
 TO )
 DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. Claim on behalf of Western Region Trackman Manuel Q.,&~amacho
 for all lost wages beginning December 14, 1992, as a result of
 being medically disqualified following a drug test in which he
 tested positive for an illegal substance. Claimant alleged that
 the collection process was mishandled by transferring the
 collected sample from a house vile to the shipping bottle.

 2. Accordingly, Carrier should now be required to expunge the
 records pertaining to the aforementioned drug test and compensate
 the claimant for all wages lost as a result of being placed on
 medically disqualification until such time as he submitted a
 clean urine specimen.

 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 a claim was filed in behalf of the claimant for all lost wages beginning December 14, 1992 as a result of being medically disqualified following a drug test in which the claimant tested positive for an illegal substance.

 The claimant alleges the collection process was- mishandled_by transferring the collected sample from a house vile (vial) to the shipping bottle. The claimant alleged that a technician in Dr. Saurez' office transferred the claimant's collection sample from a house vile (vial) to a shipping bottle.

 The claimant, in an undated letter addressed to the General Chairman, further alleged that the technician administering the drug test seemed "unsure of himself or the procedures of the test, and found himself having to ask a lot of questions of how to go .
 about with the testing.",

 The Carrier alleges that the Medical Department investigated .the allegations made by the claimant. The Carrier points up that an employee of the Medical Department interviewed the.technic.i-an responsible for the claimant's drug test held on December l; 1992 and pointed up that this laboratory had been utilized by the Carrier for several years without incident and that the technician
 Award No. 514 Page 2

 in charge of collecting samples is particularly knowledgeable in the collection procedure. On that basis the Carrier denied the claim.

 The evidence indicates that the Medical Department employee inves
 tigating the incident determined that Mr. Serrano, who made the
 drug test on December 1, 1992, had been doing drug tests for the
 AT&SF since 1989. He also stated that Mr. Serrano denied trans
 ferring the collected sample from a house vial to the shipping
 bottle and knew this would void the chain of custody.

 The claimant contends that there was a big in which the first urine test was made and

 The Board has carefully considered all of and under the circumstances herein, there sustain the claim.

 AWARD: Claim denied.

 difference in the manner the second test was made.

 the evidence presented, is no justification to

 Preston (J/ Moore, Chairman

 (111~ ~' I "L'__
 U on Me ber