PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO and
 DISPUTE: Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (Western Lines)
 STATEMENT ~1. That the Carrier violated the provisions
 of the current Agreement when, in a letter
 OF CLAIM: dated December 3, 1985, it dismissed Tract.
 Laborer F. M. Fussell from its service on the
 basis of unproven charges, said action being
 excessive, unduly harsh and in abuse of
 discretion.
 2. Carrier shall now exonerate Mr. Fussell of all
 charges and reinstate Ii im to his forme- __
 position with the Carrier with seniority and
 all other rights restored unimpaired 9
 compensation for all wage loss suffered."
 FINDINGS -
 Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees 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.

 Claimant had been employed by Carrier in 1_976. In the course of r reinstatement from a prior dismissal, Claimant was directed to take a reinstatement physical exarriination on October 18, 1985. Ir: that examination, it was determined that he tested positive fur the presence of marijuana. Subsequently, by letter dated Octobe, 29, 1985, Claimant was charged with violation of Rule G and an

2 investigation scheduled for November, 7, 1985. As a result of that investigation, it was determined by Carrier that he had violated Rule G, due to the use of marijuana, and he was dismissed from service.


This case is totally analogous to that dealt with by the Board in
 Award No. 122. As in that case, Claimant herein alleged that he
 had been subjected to a passive inhalation situation. Here, a_ 'ir,
 tire previous case, Carrier noted that the standards had been set,
 deliberately, quite high, so that passive inhalation could not
 have registered in terms of a screening test. Additionally, it
 was determined that Claimant's testimony was not to be credited
 with respect to his non-use of marijuana. Petitioner allege
 that, in the course of the particular examination, Claimant was
 not yet at) employee of Carrier's since he was in a dismissed
 statue and, therefore, Rule G was not applicable, The Board, as
 it held in the prior case, does not concur in this analysis- It
 is- apparent that Claimant was required to pass a pre-employment
 physical examination in order, to return to work. He failed that
 examination in that he was found to have been exposed to -
 marijuana. That failure and the implications of it are aptly
 covered by Carrier's Rule G and the conclusion reached by Carrier
 was justified. The claim must be denied
 AWARD
Claim denied.

 1 (v ,,

 CYeart, Carrier Merrsber

 San Francisco, California Septemberys~, 1988

 Foose, Employee Member