(i) The dismissal of Mr. L. Huggins for alleged "...failure to comply with the Conrail Drug Testing Policy as you were instructed in letter dated April 07, 1987, from Regional Medical Director P. F. Maranzini, D.O., in that you did not, within 45 days of that letter, provide a negative drug screen" was without just and sufficient cause, arbitrary, capricious, on the basis of unproven charges and in violation of the Agreement (System File CR-3160D).
(2) AS a consequence of the violations referred to in Part (1) above, the Claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights including overtime and benefits unimpaired, his record shall be cleared of the charges leveled against him and he shall be paid for all wage loss suffered.
Claimant, L. Huggins, was a Trackman. As is typical with many employees who occupy like positions, Claimant was essentially a seasonal employee who would normally be furloughed for the winter until the following spring.
Claimant was recalled to duty for the 1987 production season and, as part of his return to duty physical conducted on March
31, 1987, was required to submit a urine sample. Carrier was subsequently notified by Roche Biomedical Laboratories, the company that performs all of Carrier's drug screen urinalysis work, that Claimant's specimen allegedly tested positive for cannabinoids and cocaine.
In accordance with Carrier's policy on drugs, claimant was medically disqualified from service by letter dated April 7, 1987 from carrier's Medical Director. Claimant was instructed therein to rid his system of cannabinoids and other prohibited drugs and to provide a negative urine sample within 45 days, which was by May 22, 1987, and that his failure to comply with these instructions may subject him to dismissal. In addition, the Medical Director recommended in this letter that Claimant contact Carrier's employee counselor and follow any recommendations that the counselor might make on Claimant's behalf. The Medical Director further advised that if Claimant entered a counselorapproved educational or treatment program, the time period for providing a negative urine sample could be extended.
Claimant did not enter the Carrier sponsored treatment program and he did not produce a negative urine specimen within the prescribed 45 day limit.
By notice dated June 12, 1987, Claimant was notified to attend a hearing in connection with charges concerning his alleged failure to comply with Carrier's drug testing policy. The original hearing date was postponed at Carrier's request and a second date was postponed at the Organization's request when
Claimant did not appear. The hearing was finally held on July 21, 1987 with Claimant being provided with notification by certified letter sent to his last known address. Claimant was not present but was represented by the organization. Following the hearing, Claimant was notified by Notice of Discipline dated July 30, 1987 of his dismissal in all capacities for failing to comply with Carrier's drug testing policy.
Carrier's drug testing policy, insofar as it is applicable to this case and all cases now before this Board, was unilaterally established and set forth in a letter from Carrier's Chairman and Chief Executive officer to employees dated February 20, 1987. Carrier's Chairman stated therein that "safety is inconsistent with the use of illegal drugs by any employee, because such use endangers the welfare and safety of other employees and the public. Accordingly, Conrail is establishing a policy on drugs which is an enhancement of our current medical practice and standards. A summary of that policy is included with this letter...". The referenced policy summary which was attached to the letter stated the following:
The carrier maintains that Claimant was properly dismissed pursuant to this drug testing policy. It argues that Claimant was aware of the policy, did not provide a negative sample within 45 days as required by the policy and ordered by Carrier, and that Claimant was therefore guilty of insubordination. The Carrier further argues that its right to dismiss Claimant in such circumstances is not restricted by law, rule or the parties Collective Bargaining Agreement and has in fact been endorsed by every tribunal which has heard similar cases involving Carrier, including Public Law Board 3514, which is comprised of the same Carrier and Organization as this Board.
The organization raises an extraordinary number of arguments and defenses on behalf of Claimant. In general, the Organization does not unequivocally oppose drug testing, but rather Carrier's unilateral implementation of a drug testing program. More specifically, the organization contends that Claimant's dismissal was violative of the law and parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement. It further argues that there exist specific irregularities in Carrier's handling of this case which must result in sustaining of the claim.
In Award No. 1, also issued this day, the Board set forth guidelines concerning how it would consider certain cases arising under Carrier's drug testing policy. Applying those principles
to the facts of this case, the Board finds that the claim must be denied.
Pursuant to Carrier's policy, Claimant was given a return to work physical which included a drug screen. The testing procedures used were adequate. Carrier has established that the test result accurately showed that Claimant had cannabinoids and cocaine within his system, and that the presence of these substances was as a result of use by Claimant rather than any other reason. Moreover, it was not disputed at the hearing on the property that Claimant had a substance abuse problem. Claimant did not, as required by the drug testing policy, provide a negative sample within 45 days or refer to the employee counselor. Finally, there are no irregularities or other mitigating factors particular to this case which can be found to warrant sustaining of the claim. In this regard, Carrier did not act improperly under the circumstances in holding the hearing in absentia. Accordingly, notwithstanding the extraordinary representation provided the Claimant by the organization, the claim must be denied.