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, arid that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.
more than two, years in the custody of the probation officer with certain conditions and stipulations:- On June 4, 193_6, Carrier addressed a letter to Claimant advising- him that, -as_a result of his absence from duty without authority since May 22, 1986, his employment had been -terminated, but he was entitled to- an investigation in accordance with Rule 13. Subsequently, an
In the course of the handling of the claim herein, following the dismissal, it was indicated to Carrier that Claimant had been enrolled in the Company's Employee Assistance Program and- had participated in- the follow-up therapy for almost one year. Nevertheless, there was no consideration given to, the question of Claimant's reinstatement.
Carrier takes the position that Claimant's absence without authority was- sufficient for his termination. The Petitioner., on the other hand, argues that Claimant- was clearly ill and his chemical dependence was the basis for his absence.. In addition, the Organization maintains that Claimant -has--demonstrated his ability to control his illness, as, indicated in his eagerness to return to work and develop into a competent and reliable employee. The Organization maintains further that, in an effort to bolster the credibility of the Carrier's- Employee- Assistance Program,
Claimant should be afforded -a second chance to demonstrate his ability to, comply with Carrier's rules.
It is the Board's view that this dispute embodies a clear case of alcoholism as an illness. It is apparent that Claimant has been chemically dependent for some time. However, his participation in the Employee Assistance Program would seem to indicate that he has recovered sufficiently to maintain his role as a sound employee for Carrier. It is believed that in the interest of both parties it would be appropriate to return Claimant to his former position with all rights- restored unimpaired, dependent entirely upon the approval and recommendation of the Employee Assistance Counsellor. His return to work should be on the basis of a last chance to conform to normal employee responsibilities and rules. In the course of his return, he would receive no compensation for time lost as a result of his problems.