PUBLIC LAW BOARD NUMBER 3445
Award Number: 45 Case 'Number:. 45

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

 AND

 SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

 Laborer, Robert Patterson, 3401 Landrum Rd. #19-G, Atlanta, GA 30311, was dismissed from service on July 5, 1986 for alleged failure to comply with instructions of~Carrier's Medical Director and company policy to keep his system free of prohibited drugs. Claim was filed by the Employes in , accordance with Railway Labor Act and agreement provisions. -Employes request he be reinstated with back pay for all rights unimpaired.

 FINDINGS ,



By lector dated June 12, 10$6, Claimant was charged with failure to comply with the instzuctions of Carrier's Medical Director contained in

 letters dated November 21, December 5 and December 16, 19!55 to maintain his

 sy§tem'I£ree':.of ,dru~s.!:vFormal;~inVestigation was helda6n.June 18, 1986. By
 i. ·. · . ·.y Sy ·. .Ir
 letter dated' July 2,'"19$6, Cfa~itiknt was advised that ~hi's~ v'folation had been,

 established and he was dismissed..

 The issue to be resolved in this dispute is.whether Claimant was dismissed for dust cause; and if not, what should the remedy be.
 At a routine'"periodic physical examination on govember.4, 1985,.- .· .

 Claimant provided a urine sample which tested positive for THC (marijuana).-, ,
 The Carrier's Medical Director advised Claimant by letter d~'ted·Novem
 ber 21, 1985 that Claimant was to "rid your system- of marijuana and 'other'.',''
 prohibited drugs and to provides. negative urine~sample at a medical',
 facility to which you have been referred by the C,ompanyi within 45 days of. ,_ .
 the date of this letter." Failure to comply with this Company policy couldl· ','·11'

 result in dismissal.

 Claimant underwent a second urinalysis on November 25, 1985 in which his sample again tested positive for marijuana. By letter dated December 5, 1985, he received the same instruction as in the November 21 letter to rid, his system of drugs and was urged to seek help from the Carrier's Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Services (DARS) counselors if he felt he had a

 physical or psychological dependency on drugs..

 Claimant entered into evidence.a negative urinalysis test dated November 25,.1985 which was conducted at a facility other than the one to which he was 'directed by the 'Carrier.

 Subsequently, Claimant provided a urine sample which tested negative for marijuana and other prohibited drugs and was so advised by letter dated December,l6,· 1985.." ·,The,latter also advised Claimant that for the next three -
 ,years he ioo4Id p6f~,odi9'ally be,'r¢quired to provide I uqne: .samples to · demonstrate that he was drug ire~,gnd that a positive test ~rould subject him,

 to dismissal.


_ i II 1 ' I, , 1 ' li I' , o I . \ -
        · 1 . 1 1. 1 Vl 4,1. 1~' I I ; r.I

        ' 0: 9ay'27, 198,6`, ·' Claimant was directed to submit a urine specimen fork -'r,


      analysis at a Company medical fahi,lity. Thelresults.of that test were


      positive' for marijuana., Since' ''tfe','specimen was diluted 'in .the first test='- ,' -I,


      an EMIT test--, a second test (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry--CS/MS)

      was performed which: al'so tested positive 'for.marijuaua. Pursuant to these- ·, °

      test results, 'the,formal investigation wads commended wh~chled to Claimant's '

        · 1 - ,- IY .I,· .


                            ill -' -.'1· . I'.~ i

      dismissal.,


                                                              'I

      The position of.the Organization is that Claimant.,Iwas 'dismissed without,

      just cause because he exhibited no signs of drug influence when he was .. ·'


      directed,to take the May 27, 1986 -urinalysis: This action,,the Organiza-I., ' ~:i ., ..'~i'~


                                                    1


      tion argues,.shows that the Carrier, is applying. Rule .C, ·Iwithout concern fore'.. .,t,'\ S~,f

      . .., the requirement to show probable cause. , ·


                                                            i-


                  1 I


          The position of the Carrier is that Claimant was dismissed for just ,'1,1 ,;


      cause because the evidence in the record showed he violated the Company's


      drug policy and the specific instruction in the letters from the Medical ;'


      Director to maintain his system_free of drugs. Claimant's positive, results'

      ,r , in the May 27 urinalysis are reliable, the Carrier argues, and his negative results in the November 25 test performed at a non-Company facility are of no significance. Finally, the, Carrier defends its, sltrict_drug policy on the ·,'


      grounds that employee and public safety demand it.,'


      After revisw,dflthe entirate!cord, the Board finds that Claimant was dismissed for just cause and this claim must be denied,.,


                    1 I


                    ' 3 1


              \il

              (I'. i ·" ~11, A · , I.' I 'Il, .· I - ,

                                  41,

The Carrier established through substantial credible evidence4in they;'''.: record that Claimant tested positive for marijuana in,his May 27 urinalysis. The two tests confixm this and there is no allegation or evidence that the.' testing process was faulty. This positive test is a clear violation of the" instructions in the letters of Carrier's Medical Director dated November 21, December 5 and December 16 to rid his system of,marijuana and other _.'. , prohibited drugs. Further, it violates the instruction in the December 16 ' letter that he will be required to demonstrate that he is no longer using marijuana, and it is violative of the Company policy against drug use. It. is the violation of the instructions from the Medibal Director and not of Rule G which resulted in, Claimant's dismissal, and that violation is ·,

 clear.

 The CarrieY's drug policy and drug testing practices are sound. They are desigtled to provide for the health and safety of employees and the public at large. 'Carrier's concern that its employees be drug free and

 cons¢quently alert and responsible is good labor relations policy. testing ~e7ps ezjsurq ,the integrity of the policy.'."
 AWARD
Claim denied.

 DATE: - 34 I~7SF3

 A
 /Neutral Member

    rrier M em er


org ` zation Membe~