PARTIES TO DISPUTE:





STATEMENT OF CLAIM:






OPINION OF THE BOARD:
This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds that the Employe and the Carrier involved in this idispute are respectively Employe and Carrier within the meaning of -the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

 On January 20, 1982, the Carrier directed a letter to the Claimant advising him to attend an investigation on the following charge:






                      2


The investigation was held on February 3 after a postponement. On February 12 the Carrier directed a letter to the Claimant which read in pertinent part:

      "In connection with the hearing held on February 3, 1982

' -enclosed is Discipline Notice No. 487 advising you the
 discipline administered has been dismissal from the
 service of the Chicago and North Western-Transportation
 Company effective February 12, 1982.
 Please acknowledge receipt of the Discipline Notice,
 Form 1185, by signing and returning a copy. A self
 addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your con
 venience. The original of the Form 1185 may be retained
 by you." _
 It is also noted that the General Chairman was-advised on March 14,
 1983, that the Claimant would be offered reinstatement without
 -prejudice to and with the right to progress the portion of the Claim
 -relating to time lost. The Claimant was advised by the Carrier on
 March 24, 1983, that he was eligible for reinstatement. The Claimant
 failed to respond to the March 24, 1983, letter. On April 28, 1983,
 as a result of failure to respond to the March 24, 1983, letter,
 the Carrier advised the Claimant his name was being removed from the
 aseniority roster.
 First, the Organization contends that the discipline is
 defective, because the Carrier failed to provide the Grievant a copy
 of the transcript within ten days of the hearing. They contend that
 the Carrier agreed to do so in a letter of understanding.
 In regard to the Organization's procedural objection, the Board
 can find no sound basis in the record to overturn the discipline on
 this point. While they assert the transcript was not included with
 the discipline decision which was timely, there is no substantiation
 of such an assertion. Procedural objections cannot be sustained on
 assertion alone.
                      ~~a-Y7


In regard to the merits, it is noted that the Claimant was off duty but on the Carrier's property at the time of the incident. Rule G has been held to apply when an employe is on the Carrier's property even when he/she is off duty.
 The critical question is whether the Claimant was under the influence of alcohol. There is no dispute that the Claimant had been Arinking off the Carrier's property prior to the incident. The Claimant admitted this but contended he was not under the influence of alcohol. However, there must be more than mere admission that he had been drinking prior to appearing on-the Carrier's property to establish that there was substantial evidence that he was under the influence of alcohol.
 The Board concludes that when other evidence is considered in addition to the admission that the Claimant had been drinking, there is substantial evidence to support the Carrier's finding. It should be noted that the record is not without some elements of doubt as to whether he was under the influence. However, under the substantial evidence test. The Carrier is not required to show the employe is under the influence of alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt as would the State in a criminal matter.
 The Board notes that the Claimant refused to take a blood test and was observed to have glassy and bloodshot eyes in addition to performing less than normal on two ability tests administered at the time of the incident. When these factors are considered, as a whole, in connection with his admission he had been drinking, the Board believes there was substantial evidence that he was under the influence of alcohol although not to a great degree. In view of the foregoing, the Claim is denied.
                        r~Gj (o o - 7 4


    AWARD: The Claim is denied.


                    -Gil Vernon, airman


:~=a ti- b.Ha prper, m oye em er . raw o, , Carrier em er

    Slated: 3 R$