PARTIES Brotherhood of hlaintenanceof WayEmplove
 _TU and -
 D ISPUTE: Atchison Topeka 8t Santa Fe Railway Company

 STATELEt'dT "i. That the Carrier' sdecision to dismiss
 OF C_Li=_iIrl: Trackman F. E. Jackson was-unduly harsh
 and was in abuse of Carrier discretionary
 power.
 2. That Carrier be-reouired to return Claimant
 ,Jackson to his former position with senioritv
 and all o`.Jher rights unimpaired and that he
 be compensated for all wane loss as a result
 of Carrier's harsh action."
 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 du1·,
 constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has Jurisdiction of the
 parties and the subject matter-.

Claimant herein had been employed by Carrier an April of 19:'6 a_ n Trackman. On AUUt-tSt 6, 1986, Claimant was arrested witn see-:er: other suspects during a drug bust in Sari Saba Count;. Texas. tic was subsequently sentenced on October 23., 1986 to a ten :e:r


probation period, fined `GS,iIC>s~--and ordered to pay court cost=.
 and also received :3C? days in the count, fail to
 weekend for a 1C?-week period. In his

 investigation. Claimant admitted that he had

 delivery lived in

 of methamphetamine

 in San Saba was a

 be served each

 testimony at pied guilty

 and, furthermore, the town the small town with a population

 approximately 2500 people. The night it was aired in the
 newspaper on. October 30. 198b, with the particulars ofi

 circumstances, Claimant

 Carrier rules

 t

the

to

he

of


local

the


with violating certain

 crime and following

 was charged

 for the particular drug

 investi4ation was dismissed from service.

 Rule ib of Carrier's rules provides as follows:

 "Employees must not 6e careless of the safety of themselves. or- others: they must remain alert and attentive and plan their work to avoid injury. Employees must not be indifferent to duty, insubordinate, dishonest, immoral, quarrelsome or vicious~ Employees must conduct themselves in a manner that will pat bring discredit an their fellow employees or subject the comoanv to criticism or loss of good will.'

 Petitioner argues that the
 disproportionate to his guilt

 decision certainly indicated
 employment and go about his day
 citizen following the verdict.

 discipline accorded Claimant eras and, furthermore. the Court-5

 continue his

 that he could

 to day business as an ordinar-v For that reason, the petitiof7ino

 Organization insists that Claimant should be reinstated to his

 position.

Carrier argues that Claimant's admitted act involving drug delivery reflected conduct unbecoming an employee and which certainly could bring discredit upon his fellow employees and subJccL We Carrier Lo criticism and possible loss of good will. In addition, obviously his conduct was "immoral", in violation of Rule 16 in that context as well.


Situations such as that involved in this dispute have been dealt with by Boards in this industry on many occasions (see, for example, Award No. 8, Public Law Board 1124). Any offense dealing with illegal use or distribution of drugs is a grievous offense to an employer. Such an action by an employee obviously has an impairing effect upon the relationship between the employer and the employee and, furthermore, severely impairs the relationship between the employee and his fellow employees. Based on the entire record and the clear indication of Claimant'=_ quilt by his own admission, Carrier was within its rights and certainly within its rules in its decision to dismiss the Claimant. The claim must be denied.



AMF;D



C. F. Foose. Employee Member

Chicago, Illinois October 0. 1988