Public Law Board No. 4161
Parties to Dispute
Brotherhood of Maintenance of )
Way Employees ) Case No. 8
vs ) Award No. 7
Burlington Northern Railroad )
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The dismissal of Track Laborer M.M. Graeber for
alleged violation of Rule G by being under the
influence of alcoholic beverages while on duty
was without just and sufficient cause and on
the basis of unproven charges.
2. The Claimant shall be reinstated with seniority
and all other benefits unimpaired, his record
cleared of the charge leveled against him and
he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS
The. Claimant was advised on November 2, 1981 to attend an
investigation to determine facts and establish responsibility, if
any, in connection with his alleged violation of Rule G in the
vicinity of MP 171.5 East of Beach, North Dakota at approximately
8:30 AM on November 2, 1981. After the investigation was held as
scheduled the Claimant was notified on November 19, 1981 that had -
been found guilty as charged and that he was dismissed from service
for being "...under the influence of alcoholic beverages while on
duty as laborer on the steel gang" at the time and locale specified
in the charges against him. After the discipline was appealed on
property by the Organization up .to and including the highest Carrier
officer designated to hear such this case was docketed before this
i r
-2-
Public Law Board No. 4161 (Award No. 7; Case No. 8)
Public Law Board for final adjudication.
A review of the record shows that two witnesses testified at
the investigation that on the morning of November 2, 1981 the
Claimant was acting a "little odd" , that his speech was slurred
and difficult to understand, that he smelled of alcohol, and that
his eyes were "bloodshot, dilated and glazed". The Claimant was
in this condition, according to these witnesses, while on duty as a
member of the steel gang working in the vicinity of MP 171.5, east
of Beach, North Dakota. Because of this the Claimant was removed
from service on that day. At the investigation the Claimant was
asked if he understood Rule G of the Carrier's Maintenance of Way
Department and he responded in the affirmative. This Rule states
the following:
Rule G: The use of alcoholic beverages or narcotics by
employees subject to duty is prohibited. Being
under the influence of alcoholic beverages or nar
cotics while on duty or on company property is pro
hibited. The use or possession of alcoholic
beverages or narcotics while on duty or on company
property is prohibited.
Employees shall not report for duty under the in
fluence of any drug, medication or other substance
including those prescribed by a doctor or dentist
that will in any way affect their alertness, coordina
tion, response, safety or ability to perform their
work properly.
when asked if he violated this Rule on the day in question the
Claimant simply stated:"No, I didn't" without additional explanation.
The primary defense of the organization is that the testimony by
the witnesses is undependable because they were without medical training and because the Claimant was never administered a scientific test
to determine whether he was under the influence of alcohol on the
day in question. The Board finds such argument unpersuasive. The
record shows that laymen such as the Assistant Roadmaster and the
-3-
Public Law Board No. 4161 (Award No. 7; Case No. 8)
Steel Gang Foreman came to reasonable conclusions relative to the
Claimant's intoxicated state by making commonsense observations
with respect to his general composure and gait, his speech patterns,
the appearance of his eyes and the odor from his breath and body.
Arbitral forums in the railroad industry have precedentially ruled,
which this Board finds persuasive, that "...intoxication need not
be proven through medical or other formal tests. Reasonable men
can make this type of determination" (Second Division 8420: see also
Second Division 8807 and Third Division 8993, 10928, 15574 for
similar reasoning). On the basis of evidence of record, therefore,
the instant claim cannot be sustained.
AWARD
Claim denied.
i
Eward L
d~"~ untrue, eutr~Ta '~
m
ear
B. W.- otter,, -Carr ier_'I;Member___~
i Karl
J . n
u sen, Employee them er
Date: ~r %~ _i . ~. ~~`
i