The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that the parties herein are carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and, the parties were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Claimant underwent a routine physical examination that included a drug screen urinalysis, and tested positive for marijuana. In pursuance of its medical policy, carrier withheld Claimant from active service. This policy has been described in Award No. 6 (Case No. 6) of this Public Law Board.
The Claimant complied with company policy and instructions from Carrier's Medical Director by subsequently providing a urine specimen which tested negative for marijuana and other prohibited drug substances. He was therefore returned to active service, but remained subject to those provisions of the company policy which provide as follows:
On December 15, 1986, Claimant was instructed to complete a drug screen urinalysis in pursuance of the above mentioned continuing testing provisions of company policy.
As developed at a company hearing, while being taken to a clinic for the drug screen urinalysis test by Carrier's SupervisorSignals, in the company of Carrier's Assistant Superintendent-St. Louis, and the vehicle was stopped for a traffic signal at the clinic, Claimant departed the vehicle. In this regard, the Signal Supervisor offered the following testimony at the company
Asked if he took any exception to testimony of the Supervisor as stated above, Claimant said:
The Assistant Superintendent essentially corroborated the testimony of the Supervisor-Signals that Claimant had not said anything as he proceeded to leave the vehicle and supported further testimony to the effect that Claimant had not complained of any sickness or discomfort while riding in the truck to the Clinic.
There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the two supervisory officials as to what they say they had observed on the date in question relative to Claimant's actions. At the same time, assuming, arguendo, Claimant had an unfortunate "short call," it is difficult to comprehend his being too embarrassed to relate such happenstance to the two supervisors, but not so embarrassed as to take a public bus home without first going to a bathroom at the clinic to clean himself up. It would seem that Claimant had not only an obligation to inform his supervisors why he found it necessary he not proceed with the test at that time, but that he was also obliged to not have waited until the following day before offering any explanation whatever for his failure to go into the clinic for the test.
In consideration of the record as a whole, there is no question but that Claimant acted irresponsibly and by his own actions in not taking the drug screen urinalysis at the time in question solely put himself in an adverse position subject to disciplinary
action. His bare and unsubstantiated assertion that he had justifiable reason for not taking the test gave Carrier sufficient cause to hold that he was guilty, as charged, of violation of instructions to provide a drug screen urinalysis in accordance with company policy and instructions issued to him by Carrier's Medical Director. Therefore, in view of Claimant having previously tested positive for marijuana, and being afforded opportunity to reveal that his body has meantime stayed clean of any prohibited drugs, and having failed to do so, it may not be said that Carrier did not have just cause to hold that he be dismissed from all service.