PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 TO and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company
 STATEMENT "(1) That the Carrier violated the provisions of
 OF CLAIM the current Agreement by dismissing track
 laborer Mr. Terry DiPoma without just and
 sufficient cause.
 (2) That the Carrier now be required to reinstate
 Claimant DiPoma to his former position with
 seniority and all other rights restored un
 impaired and wdth compensation for all wage
 loss suffered."
 FINDINGS

 Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

 The record indicates that Claimant, employed by Carrier in February of 1984, was arrested on March 18, 1985. He was charged with having sold cocaine to an undercover agent from the State Narcotics Bureau on February 22, 1984. Subsequently he was charged with violation of Carrier's Rule "G" and also Rule N-801. A hearing was scheduled to be held on March 25, 1985, and was held even though Claimant did not appear at the hearing. Rule "G" provides as follows:
                                                      -2-


" The illegal use, possession, or sale by on or
 off-duty employees of a drug, narcotic or other
 substance which affects alertness, coordination,
 reaction, response or safety is prohibited."
 Rule N-801 provides among other things that employees will not be
 retained in service who conduct themselves in a manner which would
 subject the Company to criticism.

 The evidence introduced at the investigation reveals that a patrolman in Carrier's Police Department was involved in an on-going investigation in conjunction with the Utah State Narcotic Bureau, of alleged narcotics violations in the vicinity of Ogden, Utah. The patrolman in question was with a State Law Enforcement officer when Claimant sold to the latter officer the cocaine in question. officer Morgan was later involved in the arrest of Claimant after a warrant had been issued. Carrier views the circumstances surrounding Claimant's arrest and violation of the rules as being extremely serious and warranting dismissal without any doubt. There is no question concerning Claimant's guilt, particularly since he did not deem it necessary to appear at the hearing for which he had received appropriate notice.

 The Petitioner defends the Claimant's actions and requests that he be reinstated.

 It is apparent from the transcript of the investigation that Claimant was guilty of an extremely serious charge in the attempted sale of cocaine to an undercover agent. This conduct is clearly prohibited
 I CO- 0

 by Rule G and also the impact of the act brought criticism at least potentially on Carrier in view of the publicity attendant upon the entire crackdown on the cocaine selling and narcotics abuse in the area.

 There is no doubt therefore that Carrier was eminently justified in its decision to terminate Claimant and the claim must be denied.

 AWARD
San Francisco, California

 January ;-4 , 1987

 Claim denied.

 2 I.M.Lieberman, Neutral-Chairs

 C.F, oose, Employee Member