1985, together with other, employees. As a result, all of the employees were required to take urinalysis tests to determine; whether, or, not they had been exposed to drugs or alcohol. One result of that test showed Claimant to be positive for, both marijuana as well as amphetamines and methadone. Thereupon, he
was removed from service pending an investigation. At the request of Petitioner, the investigation was postponed to December 19, 1985 and at that investigation, Claimant admitted that the drugs were properly found in the urinalysis. Furthermore, he had participated in the Employee Assistance Program and Drug Rehabilitation Program prior to the, investigation. Carrier's records 'indicate that Claimant had not contacted the Carrier, or the Employee Assistance Counsellor, since March of 1986, despite overtures by the Counsellor and- the local Organization Chairman. Since rehabilitation was not successful from the Carrier's point of view, it had no choice but to terminate him.
From the Board's point of view, the facts in this matter, are clear and unequivocal. Claimant was found guilty of being under thcinfluence of drugs while on duty and did not deny that status. While he entered the Rehabilitation Program, he made no attempt to secure his position back at the complexion of that Program ever, th,ougf· requested to do so by several individuals- Carrier was within its prerogative to determine that termination was the only answer and the Board so holds. . a ~t3~ -la='j