f l




                              Case No. 87

                              File MW-DEC-80-63


        Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

        to and

        Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company


        Statement

        of Claim: Claim on behalf of D. M. Barrett requesting that he be

        reinstated with all rights and be paid for all time lost

        as a result of an investigation held April 14, 1987 in which

        he was charged with failure to comply with instructions

        to provide a drug screen urinalysis in accordance with

        Company Policy.


        Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of this case by reason of

        the parties Agreement establishing this Board.

        Claimant, in March 1985, underwent a return to work

        physical which included a drug screening urinalysis. Test

        results reflected positive for marijuana. Carrier's Medical

        Director, Dr. Ford, informed the Claimant of this fact in a

        letter dated April 9, 1985. He also advised the Claimant

        that he must rid his system of prohibited drugs within 45

        days or he would be subject to dismissal.

        Claimant Barrett produced a negative sample on April

        26, 1985 and was returned to service by letter May 2, 1985.

        He was notified, January 14, 1986, that he would be subject

        to a retest for a period of three years from the date of his

        return to work, May 2, 1985 and that the discovery of

        prohibited drugs in his system would result in his

        dismissal from service.

        Claimant was retested on April 8, 1986 and tested

        positive for marijuana. He was dismissed December 25, 1986.

        He was reinstated to service on a leniency basis on October

        13, 1986.

        The Medical Director called Claimant's supervisor on

        April 13, 1987 instructing him to take the Claimant for a

        retest in accordance with the company policy. Said

        Supervisor on April 14, 1987 went to the job site where

        Claimant was working and advised that he was instructed to

        take him to Doctors Family Practice for a retest. Claimant

        refused stating that he would not go and provide a urine

        sample without his attorney being present. He was

        instructed three times to submit to a urine sample and

        Claimant refused. Claimant was then told that he was being

        removed from service pending an investigation.

                        -2- Award No. 87 - l 7 ba


        As a result of the formal investigation held, Carrier concluded Claimant to be culpable of the insubordination charge. He was dismissed from service as discipline therefor.


        We find no cause in this record to take exception to Carrier's action. Claimant was accorded the due process to which entitled under his discipline rule.


        There was sufficient evidence adduced to support Carrier's findings that Claimant failed to carry out reasonable instructions.


        The discipline assessed, particularly in light of the Claimant's poor service record, was not unreasonable. This claim will be denied.


Award: Claim denied.r 57. A. aCUM( oJ ., oyee Member ~~ Miller, C er Member

Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman

and Neutral Member


Issued July 27, 1989.