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 Doard is duly constituted under Public Law 89-45ra and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.
The record reveals that Claimant entered Carrier's service or: Nov=mbcr '3,0, 1970. At the time-of the incident herein on November 15, 1985, he was worlkinq as a Foreman of the system steel pang.
lestimony at the hearing (held on November 19. 1985) revealed that after reporting to work on November 15, Claimant was observed by his fellow employees, as well as the Regional Proaram Planner to be under the influence of alcohol. At the investigation, he admitted that he had been drinking beer in Substantial ouantitv tho evening before on November l·1, lY95. Following the hearing, Carrier decided that Claimant was guilty of the charges levied against him and dismissed him for being under the influence of an intoxicant while on duty.
The: record in this dispute indicates that Claimant was afforded a full and proper investigation by Carrier and there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached that he was under the influence of alcohol on the morning in question. After careful consideration, it is the Board's view that in the light of the Claimant's long service and the nature of his particular problem, he should be reinstated to his former position without compensation for time lost. but with sen.ioritv and all other rights restored unimpaired. However, this restoration to duty shall be conditioned upon his entering into a satisfactory program with the Employee Assistance Counselor in an t2tfort to deal with his problem. He will not be allowed to assume his duty and his continued employment shall be conditioned upon his compliance with the Employee Assistance Coun=selor's orogram .and monitoring.