Org. File No. ERRG-1701

                                        Carrier File No. 2-MG-1473


Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

 and to

 Dispute Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company

 Statarnnt Claim filed on behalf of Eastern Regional Rail Gang lraclay~_n Ronald
 of Claim: Lewis and Paul Lanhan for restoratacn of their seniority uninpaired
 and reimbursement for all tim lost at the applicable rate of pay as
 a result of the discipline of dismissal administered to Yessrs. Lewis
 and Lanhan following a hearing held on October 20, 1975, on charges
 of using narcotics and being intoxicated while subject to duty on
 October 9, 1975. .

          Findings: The Board finds, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, '-hat this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated October 27, 1976, that it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject'matter, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearings held.


          Both Claimants, but particularly Claimant hanhan, were cautioned during their lunch period on October 9, 1975 against "smoking dope." 7hey were observed by their Foreman, as well as five (5) fellow workers "smoking dope" during their lunch period. Both Claimants ware thereafter removed from service and told to take the day off.


          An investigation uras held October 20, 1975 on the charge of "using narcotics and being intoxicated while subject to duty ...about 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 9, 1975." As a result thereof, both Claimants were found guilty as charged and dismissed f=on Carrier's service.


          The function of a Board such as this in disciplinary matters has been well proscribed. Essentially, the Board acts as an appellate body. It reviews the record established below on the property. The Board initially ascertains whether due process was accorded the Grievant. 7hereafter, it determines whether sufficient prcbative evidence was adduce-d to support Carrier's conclusions and, lastly, if proven guilty, whether the discipline imposed was unreasonable.

                                  PL G 1 850


                  -2- Award No. 1


In the instant case, the Board finds that Claimants were accorded doe process. The record provides sufficient credible evidence t» support Carrier's conclusion that Claimants were using narcotics while subject to duty on October 9, 1975. The record essentially reflects that the Clairants' Foreran and four fellow ermloyees had testified that Claimant Ianhan care to their group and asked for a .^.atch; that he eras told not to srnke dope in front of the Foreman.; that after Claimants finished their lunch '-hey then lit a cigarette; that the cigarette dial not appear to be a normal one; that it ores rolled in cigarette paper; that it gave off a peculiar odor; that Claimant inhaled deeply and held it; that they passed the cigarette back and forth between themselves. 6ben Claimants car. back to the group, it was observed that Claimants' eyes were red and glassy. One of the witnesses testified that he had recently been trained by the National Card on the subject of marijuana. 'nie record indicates that several of the witnesses were street-wise and conversant as to irarijuana and its use.

 The Board does not find sufficient evidence to stuport a conclusion of intoxication. Nor does it find that a failure br Carrier to take Claur ants' to a doctor was fatal. Such a visit would have ascertained,by medical certainty, as to the degree of influence of the marijuana on Claimznts. Yet, such conclusion was not, in the circumstances present, necessary herein to permit of the imposition of discipline. Claimants were found to be guilty of using marijuana and being under ;he influence.

 gyre record provides no reason t7 modify the discipline imposed. .;he gravity of the offense of using narcotics and its potential effects on the safety of the individual, his fellow employees, as well as the public, is epitomized by Award No. 8 of Public law Board No. 1324 wherein Referee - D3core stated:

 "A drug offense in this era is a grievous offense to a substantial majority of this country's population.

 "Furthernnre, an offense of this nature would have a serious effect upon fellow employer. operating emloyes in this industry rust be alert and have all their wits. They r.ust also have the confidence and faith of their fellow erployes. The fellow employer of the Claimant herein must have grave doubts and concern in wor3cing with this Claimant.
 P L 1850
 "~ -3- Award No. 1

          "7herefore, the Board must find that the possession of hallucinogens is conduct which impairs the usefulness and/or the competency of an enploye in his assigned work period. 9he breach of moral standards and the behavior herein is to such an extent that the act severely impairs the relationship between the enploye and the employer, as well as the relationship between the employe and his fellow employes."


          We can find no reason to not follow this Award. in the circumstances, the Board is impelled to deny the claims herein.


Award: Claim denied. .

 A. J. Ctvmnulgnam, EmplonIiattber Z. W. Burks, Carrier Dumber

                  ur T. Van Wart, Cha; rran and Neutral NI=nber


                Issued at Atlanta, Georgia, June 9, 1977.