Parties tQ d_is_gute_







gtsa_temgnt gf elAAim_




Op1n_ign 21 22A_r91


Claimant was given a drug urinalysis as part of a 1985 physical examination. The results were positive. He complied with the Carriers drug policy, gave a negative specimen during the 45 days, and was conditionally returned to service. In June, 1986, he was given a return-to-service physical which included a urine test, and it was found positive. He was cited for investigation, and, under the drug policy, dismissed.

The organization points out that claimant went to a private physician a few days following the test by Carrier, had a urine analysis conducted, and that the test was negative. Significantly, the carrier's test showed claimant's level was 58 ng/ml, while the private test began testing at 100 ng/ml and above.

We do not find the private test convincing that the first test was in any way flawed.

Further, the Carrier has an obligation to provide all reasonable assurances that the urine has been handled in such a way that it is clearly that of the individual credited. That obligation extends to the individual when he undertaLes a private test. He must also introduce evidence that is convincinq to show that he was, in fact, the one who provided the specimen.

      We can only conclude that claimant tested positive

                                              L(OG I -33


during the probation period of the agreement under which he returned to Carrier's service.

Fin4in_gs_

      That the agreement was not violated.


Aw rd:

      Claim denied.


      Dated this 15th d April, 1987, at St. Louis, Mo.


                    John S. Criswell, Neutral- Member


                    L. W. Swert, Organization I(Ie~ber


                    E. M. Mar-tin, Carrier Member


Faqe 2 .

FLH No. 4i,S1. Award Nn. V