International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

and

The Norfolk and Western Railway Co.










                    It should be noted that Mr. Entsminger appeared before


t '

                        this Board and was given complete freedom to testify on his own behalf.

          There is no dispute with respect to the facts in this case. Claimant was convicted in the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, on three counts:


                    1. Posession of marijuana


                    2. Possession of stolen property


                      3. Posession of controlled substance with intent to distribute

          On August 28, 1979, Mr. Entsminger notified the company of the Court decisions made on the previous day. In accordance with contractual provisions, the Carrier held an investigation and hearing on August 30, 1979. The investigation was conducted in accordance with past

y - PLB No. 2120 -2- Award No. 21

        practice and all parties were freely allowed to participate. The Court documents and judgments were entered in the record. Claimant testified to their accuracy. Following the investigation Mr. Entsminger was notified by letter dated September 4, 1979, of the decision herein complained of.

        In assessing penalty the Carrier relies upon a regulation governing the conduct of its employees which reads as follows:

        "The conduct of any employee leading to conviction of any felony, or of any misdemeanor involving unlawful use, possession, transportation or distribution of narcotics or dangerous drugs, or any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude is prohibited."

                  It is clear that claimant violated the rule. The crimes

        are of a serious nature and dismissal is well within the bounds of

        reason for such convictions. The Carrier 's rights in this regard have

        been upheld by numerous Board decisions. The most recent were National

        Railway Adjustment Board, Second Division, awards numbered 8237 and 8205.

        These awards were on Norfolk and Western property and dealt with the

        same regulations. -

        Based on the foregoing and the entire record, this Board

        must deny the claim.

        AWARD: Claim denied.


                            ~c

                                r h

                      ~L,.e

                Kay Mc urra , hairman 6Aeutra1 ember


        V. T. Wil ns, Employee Membei W. L. Allman, Jr., Carrier Member


        171

        Date