Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 to and
 Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company

 Statement
 of Claim: Claim on behalf of J. A. Douglas requesting reinstatement
 and pay for time lost in connection with his dismissal for
 failure to comply with the instructions of the Medical
 Director.

 Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of this case by reason of
 the parties Agreement establishing this Board.
 The Carrier, under date of February 12, 1985, placed
 all its employees on notice that all Company physicals would
 include a drug screen urinalysis and that Company medical
 policy forbade "the active employment of those who depend on
 or use drugs which impair sensory, mental and physical
 functions."
 The employees were notified on August 1, 1985 that the
 above policy was modified; that any employee who tested
 positive for a prohibitive substance would be required to
 submit a negative retest with Carrier-designated facility
 within 45 days of the letter informing him of the positive
 test result; that employees who had tested positive but then
 provided a negative sample would be required to undergo
 periodic retest for 3 years after their return to duty in
 order to monitor their compliance.
 In the instant case, Claimant underwent a return to
 work physical examination on March 11, 1985. As a result of
 the drug screen urinalysis the test proved positive for
 marijuana. Mr. Douglas was held out of service until a
 negative urine sample was provided on June 24, 1985. The
 Claimant was subsequently returned to service. He was
 advised that he would be given periodic retest for 3 years
 after his return to duty.
 The Carrier's Medical Director on June 17, 1988 advised
 Claimant's Supervisors that he was required to take a follow
 up drug screen urinalysis. Claimant's sample tested
 positive for marijuana.
 Claimant was removed from service pending a formal
 investigation on the charge of failure to comply with
 Company policy and the instructions of the Carrier's Medical
                                  104.43/7Go


                        -2- Award No. 89


        Director. As a result of the formal investigation, held on July 26, 1988, Carrier adduced therefrom that Claimant was guilty. He was dismissed from service as discipline therefor.


        Claimant was accorded the due process to which entitled under his discipline rule. The allegation that Rule 30 was violated because he was removed from service was not timely raised and is dismissed.


        There was sufficient evidence adduced, including the admissions of Claimant, to support Carrier's conclusion of the Claimant's culpability of the charges placed against him.


        Carrier in keeping with its obligations to the public and its employees developed a reasonable and fair drug policy which was upheld by the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in RELA v. NW, No. 86, C 20646. Claimant tested positive or marijuana on the follow-up drug screen GS/MS. He clearly had failed to keep his system free of prohibited substances as instructed by the Carrier's Medical Director and Company policy. Therefore, he was subject to the discipline assessed.


        The Claimant was handled consistent with the policy when he was returned to service on June 24, 1985. He was dismissed in accordance with the application and understanding of the same policy.


        The discipline is found to be not unreasonable. This claim will be denied.


Award: Claim denied.

 . Mi er, C r r Member

                  'Anhur T. Van Wart, Chairman and Neutral Member


                  Issued July 27, 1989.