PARTIES Brotherhood of I`taintenance of Way Emolovms
_TO_w~~ and__
DISPUTE: Southern Pacific Transportation Corooanv
_310TE1EIIT "1. That the Carrier-violated the cur-
QE .G__L_AII_I: rent Agreement when it dismissed
Track Laborer F. L. Truiillb. Said
action being excessive, unduly harsh
and in abuse of discretion.
2. That the Carrier reinstate Claimant
to his former position with seniority
and all other rights restored un
impaired with pay for all loss of
earnings suffered and his record
cleared."
F IND I IJGS

Upon the whole record. after hearing, the Board finds that the
parties hurein are Carrier and Empiovees within the meaning or
the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly
constituted under Public Law 89-455 and has jurisdiction of the
parties and the subject. matter. ° -

Claimaint entered Carrier -s service in 1979. He was dismissed for violation of Rule G on October 17, 1985. Thereafter, Mr. Trujillo went through a rehabilitation program from December a, 1985

                                              ~43~/- 135


                                              - 2-


through January 1, 1986. On approximately January S. 1986. he agreed to reinstatement which included the condition that he abstain from the use of alcohol and drugs and, further, that he would submit to random toxicological testing. On Septmeber 8, 1986. Claimant was required to take a-to>;icolodical urine test. Approximately eight days later, the contract laboratory reported a positive finding for Claimant for both marijuana and cocaine. He was thereupon suspended from service pending investigation. A formal investigation was held on September 24, 1986 which Claimant did not attend. As a result of the investigation, Carrier determined that he had violated Rule G, as well as his agreement to abstain from the use of drugs, and was dismissed from service by a letter dated October 6. 1986.


Based on the record, there is no question with respect to the results of the testing procedure. Ordinarily. violations of Rule G are considered serious enough transgressions to be almost automatically grounds for dismissal. In this instance, the seriousness of the offense was even more than one would normally expect. Carrier, in accordance with a relatively modern and enlightened program which included a rehabilitation period, Tound Claimant to have violated his agreement and was under the influence of drugs during the period following his immediate rehabilitation. Thus, after one discharge and rehabilitation and an agreement not to use any of the controlled substances,

                                                ~~3~r-l3h


Claimant violated his agreement. 'There can be no doubt but- that Carrier within the limits of its enliot-itened and appropriate prooratri tound Claimant guilty ort a -serious violation and was correct in its determination that he be dismissed.

AWARD

              Claim denied.


                VU

                  ,4 qztzt .


              1. 11. Lieberman. Neutral-Chairman


C. F. Foose, Employee Member R. J rstuart.. Carrier Member

San Fransico. California
        /D , 198.y