PARTIES , Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 TO and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines)
 STATEMENT "l. That the Carrier violated-the agreement when it dismissed Track -
 0 CCLAIM_ Foreman R. H. Torres from its service for his alleged infraction
 of Carrier's Rule 'G', said action being excessive, unduly harsh
 and in abuse of discretion. -

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 was hired by Carrier in 1949 and was promoted to the position of Track Foreman in July of 1953. The record indicates that on October 8, 1982, Carrier's
 District Maintenance of Way Manager went to claimant's worksite and, based un his i
 observations, concluded that claimant was under the influence of alcohul. lie was
 offered the opportunity to have a blood test and indicated that he would do zo_after
 first going hone, but never did get to the hospital for that purpose. Subsequently,
 claimant was removed from service and following an investigation was dismissed for
 violation of Carrier's Rule "G".

 Carrier indicates that claimant was clearly, by virtue of +he evidence at the hear- -
 ing, guilty of the offense and that the discipline was eminently appropriate under
 the circumstances. Specifically, claimant had been disciplined twice for a similar _
 charge and apparently had not taken the message to heart. The rules are clear -
 and the discipline in this instance fit the crime, according to Carrier.
 PLB - 2439

 AWD 1168

 The Organization raises questions with respect to the visual inspection concerning the claimant's demeanor on the day in question. Furthermore, according to Petitioner, there was no hard evidence that the two bottles of beer removed from the Company's'truck, which had been assigned to claimant, were indeed his. Based on the Petitioner's allegation of relatively flimsy evidence, Petitioner insists that the penalty of dismissal was much too severe under the circumstances.

 After careful evaluation of the record, the Board concludes that there was ample substantial proof of claimant's guilt of the charges in this case. There is no doubt but that he violated Rule "G". The only question herein is whether or not the penalty was appropriate. The Board is aware of the fact that claimant had some thirty-three years of service with Carrier at the time of his dismissal. After careful consideration, the Board is of the view that claimant should have his job back based upon a particular condition: he must enter and complete Carrier's employee rehabilitation program ii, order to be placed back on his job. He, of course, will not be compensated for losL pay if, indeed, he does qualify to return to his job. This decision is based solely on the fact that of the many years of faithful service by claimant and in terms of equity.

 AWARD
ORDER
~A
 L. C. Scherling, Carri r Member

 San Francisco,-CA
 March 77, l%s4

 Claim sustained in part; claimant will be restored to his former position conditioned upon his entering and completing the employee rehabilitation program which is maintained by Carrier. He will not be compensated for time lost.

 Carrier will comply with the Award herein within thirty (30) days from the date hereof.



C. . F oose, Employee Member