Parties
to the
Dispute
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3765
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE
OF
WAY EMPLOYEES
VS.
GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD
COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAI1
Appeal the decision rendered in the case
of Mr. Terry Tucker, Trackman, who was
issued discipline in the form of dismissal
as a regular of an investigation held June
11, 1990 at Pontiac, Michigan.
Request Mr. Tucker be returned to service
and be paid for time lost on passing a
return to work physical examination.
OPINION OF THE BQARD
Case No. 46
Claimant Terry Tucker was employed by Carrier on May 1,
1989, as a Trackman. On August 15, 1989, he sustained an
on-duty injury. Before he had an opportunity to return to
work from the injury, he was furloughed. In March 1990,
Claimant was recalled to work. He was subjected to a return-to-duty physical examination, as required. Part of
that examination is a urine test for drugs. Claimant tested
37
bs~
~ c~
positive for cocaine. He was notified by the Medical Department of his positive drug test and was directed to
enroll in the EAP Program or to supply a negative urine
sample within 45 days. He was informed that if he did not,
further action, including dismissal, was possible. Claimant
did not enroll in the EAP Program or meet the 45-day deadline to submit a negative sample. The Chief Engineer was so
notified. Claimant was thereafter notified by carrier to
appear for an investigation into the matter. The letter
informing Claimant of the investigation reads in pertinent
part as follows:
1. Your alleged failure to comply with
directions from the Carrier's Chief
Medical Officer, V.J. Gallant, dated
March 30, 1990, which directed you
to provide a negative drug screen
within 45 days of that letter to enroll in and successfully complete a
rehabilitation program under the
supervision of the Manager EAP.
2. Being absent from duty without proper
authority beginning May 15, 1990.
3?6S-qb-
3
The investigation was held as scheduled on June 11,
1990. Claimant was properly notified of the hearing, but he
failed to appear. Over the objection of the Union Representative, Carrier held the investigation without Claimant
being present.
As a result of the investigation, Claimant was found
guilty as charged and was dismissed from service.
This Board has reviewed the total record of this case.
This review persuades the Board that Claimant was guilty as
charged. Despite his failure to appear at the hearing, his
case received a fair evaluation. He had a chance to help
himself to keep his job, but for some reason chose not to do
so. He neglected to act at his own peril.
AWARD
The claim is denied.
Rt8. Dennis,
Neutral Member
J.A. DeRoche, Yi as n, _
Carrier Member
;tp
l a ember
Date of Adoption