Fr"-;F;l IES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO and
 DISFUF E* Southern Pacific Transportation Company
 i~;I-Ehi~r?T "1. That the Carrier violated the cur
 i.IF Cl_'=:Ihf: rent 0oreement when -it dismissed
 _._ .____.~ Laborer-Operator C. D. vhitnev. -
 Said action being emcessive, unduly
 harsh and in abuse of discretion.
 .?. That the Carrier shall reinstate
 Claimant tams former Position
 with seniority arid all other rights
 restored unimpaired with pay for
 all loss of earninos suffered and
 his record cleared."

 F' 11·70 I? IGS

Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds thet the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the: meaning of the Railwas Labor Act, as amended, and that this Hoard is din. constituted under- Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdintion OT the parties and the subject matter.


Claimant ?had been employed by Carrter in 19?4. According to tn(.
 record, opt April 1", 1985, Claimant delivered a controllou
 ~p 43qi- 13'a

 sustance to an undercover oola.ce of ficer. He. w a=_ con victco c1
 der.lir~g ire drugs on Lrecembcr .~1. 1985. In the interim, on :,taut-.=-t.

 8, 19crt-, Claimant was dismissed tro Rules brol and M (havinq no relationship

 June 1'?, 1986, Claimant was reinstate -

 basis. Subsequantlv, Rule G on June 19,

 frc.m service due to the

 There is no -question but that Claimant h?d bEero convic±er~ or
 dealing in drugs. The only significant issue ire this dispute

 what Claimant's status

 i.hIc·ucth at the time-of

 he was charoed wit

 1986 and following

 drug problem.

 m

 d

 service for violation of to the drug charges). ~_-1 n to service o_n_a leniency

 h violation of furrier s -

 a hearing, was dismissed

 was al the time of his conviction, e·:e.n

 his: concoction in December- of i=·6~ C7.:·:·.mant

 w·,s not- an employee., having been dismissed in the The record is also clear that at the time of the in c9rl..rqs CI aimant cogs indeed an employH!=or Carr-

 nol_hincp in

 an emplo·;ee in its service who has

 prior su~T~mer.
 actual dealina

                    the rules which mandates-that a Carrier, sn;:li r-e.ta_r,


been gua.lty of dealing ire

dr°uqs while an empl.oy·ee. 'ThUs, Carrier's conclusions as a re..4i.10 of its in·:eisti-gatl.on ar°m charges was amply .ysyfied. il-m C:la am must:. be denied.

                                    ~;1u39 -13.)-


Glaxm de,nxeo.

              ~ .....' .-Lioborman. Ploutral.-Chairman


            W!!V'~ __ _._~ _ _._t~ ~__.r-~.__, _ _e

l:. F. F.oo=e, Employee Humber F:. J. -tuart. Ca rf xor- I·r==mooi·

 San Fransxco, Calx-fornia
 December , 198H