PUBLIC T;AW BOARD NO.' V69B
Case
No.
72 Award No. 72
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
Brotherhood Railway Carmen Division Transportation-Communications
International Union
And
CSX Transportation, Inc.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: _
No. 1 That the Carrier imposed the extreme and unwarranted
discipline of Dismissal upon Carman D. R. Hoerst as
the result of an Investigation held on March 15, 1994
to determine alleged insubordination in connection
with adulteration of short notice follow-up toxicological
test specimen on February 17, 1994.°
No- 2 That Carman D. R. Hoerst be reinstated to the employ of
the Carrier, with all seniority rights unimpaired, and
that he be made whole for all lost wages beginning on
February 25, 1994 (the date the Carrier non-contractually
removed Carman Hoerst from service) until adjudication
of this dispute, and that all notations of this Dismissal
be removed from his Service/Personnel record.
FINDINGS: On February 28, 1994, the Claimant was directed to attend
a formal investigation. The charge letter, in pertinent part, stated:
"You are charged with insubordination in
connection with a follow-up drug screen specimen
submitted by you on or about February 17, 1994,
in Cincinnati, Ohio.
By virtue of the fact that the analytical
laboratory, Compuchem Laboratories Inc., reported
that your urine specimen was adulterated with the
chemical glutaraldehyde.
These findings are considered to be a refusal
to take the test."
Following the investigation, the Carrier found the Claimant
guilty
as
charged and he was separated from the service.
The Claimant was
a
participant in the Carrier's Employee'Assistance
Program
("EAP11)
and, in
accordance with the provisions of the EAP (of
which he was aware), he became subject to periodic drug testing. He
also had been informed that Examination Management Services, Inc.
PLB No. 4698 C-72/A-72
Page 2
("EMSI") would serve as the Carrier's agent far the collection of -
specimens and that failure to comply with EMSI's insturetions would
be considered the same as a refusal to undergo testing. Therefore,
the Claimant was well aware of the employment conditions that he was
subject to for continued employment.
On February 17, 1994, the Claimant submitted a drug screen specimen which was found by the analytical laboratory employed by EMSI to
have been adulterated with Glutaraidehyde. This finding ultimately
caused his discharge from the service of the Carrier.
The Board has carefully reviewed the transcript of the hearing
and finds that the Claimant received a fair and impartial hearing
within the framawork and context of the process used in this industry.
The controlling question in this case is whether the urine specimen was adultered and whether the chain of custody was compromised
in some manner.
The Claimant was aware of the Carrier's policy and procedure with
respect to the Carrier's drug testing policy. He certified, at the
time
when he
was tested, that his specimen'- bottle had been sealed
with a tape-proof seal in his presence and that the information on
the Drug Testing Custody and Control Form and on the label affixed to
the specimen bottle was correct. There was no evidence presented that
the chain of custody did not remain intact and that the test was not
properly conducted.
In view of all of the foregoing, the Board has no basis to sustain
the claim.
AWARD
The claim is denied.
.,. i' '.ao : s, 7
.Gera d Gray c muess g J. . K tzak
Organization Membe Neutral M r Carrier Member
Dated:
9
AG. 1 3f 11