PUBLIC LAW BOARD NUMBER 3445
PARTIES TO DISPUTI
STATEMENT OF CLAM
, IY,
Award Number: 69
Case Number: 69
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
And
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Claimant, Cleveland Gray, P.O. Box 1092, Purvis, MS 39475,-allegedly
charged with conduct unbecoming an employe concerning his arrest for a
felony crime - sale of cocaine and manufacture of cocaine on Friday,
December 9, 1988. -
FINDINGS
Claimant entered the Carrier's service on September 26, 1974.
By letter dated December 16, 1988, Claimant was ordered to attend a
formal investigation on charges of conduct unbecoming an employee based on
his arrest for the sale and manufacture of crack cocaine. The ,investigation
was held on December 2?, 1988. By letter dated January 11, 19$9, Claimant
was dismissed based on evidence adduced at the investigation.
The issue to be, decided in'thi:
dismissed for just
remedy be-. ;
On December 10, 1988,
dispute is whether Claimant was.
cause under the Agreement; and if not, what should the
:
r.
i i i,
Claimant's supervisor, Division Engineer H. R.
Anderson, recognized Claimant's picture in a newspaper article. about a drug
I
· 3~US-h9
arrest. On December 12, the Carrier's Police and Anderson contacted the '
local police authorities and verified that Claimant had been 'arrested and
charged with the sale of cocaine and manufacture of crack cocaine. Claimant.e'i;;~'
i
was indicted for these two felonies on December 9, 1988. During the formal
investigation, Claimant testified that he received$75 from an undercover
i ,
narcotics agent to purchase cocaine from his cousin. Claimant made the
purchase, keeping a $25 fee for the service. After the investigation, on -
January 11, 1989-, Claimant pleaded guilty to sale of a controlled substance- ·.
(cocaine) and was sentenced to 5 years in prison.- - i
The position of the Carrier is that Claimant was dismissed for just '
cause because his actions clearly constitute conduct unbecoming. The i,
Carrier maintains that there is no dispute as to Claimant's arrest and
admission of the narcotics transaction at the investigation and that these -_
were sufficient bases for finding conduct unbecoming. The subsequent guilty
plea is additional proof of bad conduct. The Carrier also contends that
dismissal is warranted based an the serious nature of the crime Claimant
committed.. ' ., ' !,
The position of the Organization is that Claimant,was dismissed without
just cause, brguin4.that the Carrier lacked sufficient basis to find that
Claimant hadengaged in conduct unbecoming an employee. It maintains, by
implication, that dismissal before a conviction is c4ithout sound basis. '' '.'
TheOrganizationcites,Claimant's'
unblemished·record in,support of his reins tat,-,',,,
After review of the entire record, the Board finds that Laimant was
i ,
properly dismissed under the Agreement.
i
The Carrier has sustained its burden
of
proving'conduct.unbecoming an
n
employee. It has established by substantial credible evidence in the record
that Claimant was arrested for serious cocaine related crimes and that he
admitted he purchased cocaine for the narcotics agent while retaining a fee
for doing so- These actions by Claimant clearly constitute an unacceptable ,.
standard of conduct for. an employee. The Carrier has a -reasonable expecta
tion that its employees will be law abiding and responsible. Conduct such
as Claimant's is. neither and cannot be tolerated in any case, but especially
in an industrial work place such as the Carrier operates. Its respon
sibility to the public and its employees dictates that an employee cannot be
involved in drug related activities; to be so involved is clearly unbecoming
conduct. The Carrier's'action was warranted and was neither arbitrary,
capricious nor''discrimihatory.
Claim denj.edl,
1 4.
NeU'tral' a er
Carrier Member
Organization Member