PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 1760
Award No. 94
Case No. 94
File MW-DEC-87-9
Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
to and
Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company
Statement
of Claim: Claim on behalf of J. A. Wolf requesting reinstatement
and pay for time lost as a result of his dismissal for
failure to comply with the instructions of Carrier's Medical
Director and Company Policy.
Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of this case by reason of
the parties Agreement establishing this Board.
This is another in the series of drug cases involving
employees who are returning to service, and after taking the
required physical examination, including a drug screen
urinalysis, are found to have tested positive. Such
employees resubmit a negative test finding within the
required 45 days and they then are reinstated to service but
are subject to sporadic testing for 3 years and on such
testing are again found to have tested positive. Thus,
failing to comply with the conditions under which they were
reinstated to service they now are in violation of
Carrier's medical policy and after a formal investigation
are dismissed from service therefor.
See our Awards 85, 87, 89 and 94, the findings of
which, by reference, are incorporated herein.
In the instant case, following a return to work
physical examination on December 8, 1986, the results of the
Claimant's urinalysis test reflected positive for marijuana.
The Claimant was advised, on December 26, 1986, to produce a
negative test within 45 days. He submitted a urine sample
on February 5, 1987 that tested positive for marijuana. The
last deadline date for presenting a negative test was
February 11, 1987.
Claimant neither entered the DARS program, nor
submitted the required negative urine sample, by February
11th. His supervisor was so notified on February 13, 1987.
Claimant was required to attend a formal investigation
on the charge for such failure. The investigation was
postponed until May 26, 1987, at which time, it was held.
As a result of the evidence adduced thereat Carrier,
PC. /3 1760
-2- Award No. 94
concluded that Claimant was guilty. He was dismissed from
service as discipline therefor.
Claimant admitted that he received Dr. Ford's December
26, 1986 letter. He also conceded that he neither enrolled
in the DARS program, nor had provided a negative urine
sample within the 45 day limit. In this, as all its other
tests, Carrier employed the EMIT and confirmed all positive
EMIT tests by a GC/MS (Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry)
which is supported by a Mayo Clinic study:
"If a positive test result will put the patient in
consideration jeopardy and the screening result is the only
evidence of drug use, confirmatory testing is imperative.
Of the confirmatory tests, GC/MS seems to have the
specificity necessary to provide a high level of confidence
in the results. A combination of the EMIT procedure with a
sensitivity level of 20 NG/ML and GC/MS confirmation yields
virtually 1001 accuracy in detection of marijuana abuse."
The Brotherhood also believes that the latter test is
fair, reasonable and realistic because it so stated in its
May 1987 edition of the BMWE journal.
We find no errors so egregious in the handling of this
case as to be the cause for reversal of the discipline.
Claimant may have tested negatively in a drug screen on
March 10, 1987, nearly 30 days after the required 45
grace eperiod but such test failed to comply with Ford's
instructions and the Carrier's drug
policy.
Further, the
sample in that test and the sample used in the Carrier's
required test differ. Irrespective, our Board decided that
issue previously by denying the claim based thereon in our
Award No. 84.
In the circumstances this case, the Board finds the
discipline imposed is consistent with its well publicized
drug policy. This claim will be denied.
Awar : Claim denied.
S. . Hartraons, Jr , Employee Mem er . . Mi l.er, Car Member
Arthur .Van Wart, Chairman
and Neutral Member
Issued August 30, 1989.