PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4426

BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

"Organization"

VS.

CENTRAL VERMONT RAILWAY, INC.


STATEMENT of CLAIM:

Claim of the Brotherhood that:

Award No. 2

(a) Carrier's dismissal of Claimant G. R. Desautels was arbitrary and capricious, being based upon vague and unproven charges.

(b) Carrier shall restore Claimant Desautels to service,
with all seniority, and compensate each man for all lost
wages as provided for in Rule 27-A of the Scheduled
Agreement.

OPINION OF THE BOARD

Claimant, G. R. Desautels, was dismissed by letter of July

19, 1985, which stated as follows:

This is to advise you that you are dismissed from the service of the Company for violation of "G" of the UCOR.



Also for violation of Rule 3000 of the central Vermont Railway Safety Rules, which states:

"The use of intoxicants or narcotics by


          employees subject to duty, or their possession, or use while on duty, is prohibited."


    Also, for violation of Rule 3(a) and 3(b) of Central

    Vermont General Rules for Employees Not Otherwise Subject

      to the Rules for Conducting Transportation:


          "3 (a) Employees use or possession of

          intoxicants or narcotics while on duty or while

          on company property is prohibited."


          "3(b) Employees shall not report for nor be on

          duty, at any time, under the influence of

          intoxicants or any other substance whatsoever

          (including those prescribed for them for

          medical reasons) that will in any way adversely

          affect their alertness, coordination, reaction,

          response or ability to work properly or

          safely."

Upon being notified of his dismissal, Claimant requested a hearing, which was held on August 14, 1985. On August 22, 1985, Carrier informed Claimant by certified mail that his dismissal was confirmed. Appeal was made through various levels of the grievance procedure, and was declined at all levels. The hearing before this Board took place on February 29, 1988. Claimant was informed of the hearing before this Board, by certified mail, but he did not appear.

Events triggering the Claimant's discharge took place on
July 18, 1985. On that day, the Claimant was working on a track
gang consisting of seven members. The gang was secretly observed
between the hours of 0900 and 1640 by the Carrier's Chief of
Police, J. B. Ovitt, and a private investigator. The Carrier
engaged in this surveillance because of information received
anonymously concerning alleged misconduct by the crew. AS a
result of activities allegedly observed by Ovitt and the
2
_LILPZ~_Z

investigator on July 18, and information obtained in the resulting investigation, the Carrier believed that the Claimant had broken the above quoted Rules by smoking marijuana and drinking beer while on duty.

The Carrier contends that the allegations against the Claimant are supported by substantial evidence in the record and that the claim should therefore be dismissed. The Organization maintains that the Claimant is not guilty as charged and that the Carrier committed numerous investigative and procedural errors that warrant setting aside the discipline imposed.

The Board has determined that the claim be sustained in part.

There is no question but that the Claimant is guilty as charged, as he has openly admitted to smoking marijuana and drinking on duty. The gravity of these offenses is obvious. The Claimant's candor in admitting his misconduct, however, is impressive and a substantial mitigating factor. Given all the factors involved in this matter, and after careful consideration of all arguments raised by the organization in the Claimant's behalf, the Board has concluded that the Claimant should be given an opportunity to rehabilitate himself and return to work.

The Board hereby establishes the following conditions that the Claimant must meet before being reinstated: within sixty (60) days of the date the organization notifies the Claimant of this decision by certified mail, the Claimant must contact the Carrier and state that he will proceed to follow the terms of


                            3

                                                4 Uz6=Z


this conditional reinstatement. If the Claimant does not contact the Carrier by the end of this sixty (60) day period, he waves all further rights to reinstatement. If the Claimant does make timely contact with the Carrier, he must then undergo a rehabilitation program that is mutually agreed upon by himself and the Carrier. Any cost associated with the program must be borne by the Claimant. If the Claimant successfully completes the rehabilitation program, as defined by the program itself, he shall report to the designated rehabilitation officer of the Carrier to be approved for return to work. Once approved, the Claimant shall be reinstated to his former position with full seniority, but without back pay.


AWARD

Claim sustained in part. Claimant shall be reinstated with full seniority but without back pay, only if he complies with all the requirements set forth in the above Opinion.


            ll~L- W. E. LA RUE, J. J W CH, ~_ ~Z _~

Organization Member C-arrk9x'Member

                  S. E. BUCHHEIT,

                  Neutral Member


                          4