' Case
No.
27
PUBLIC LAW BOARD
NO.
4823
PARTIES) THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
TO ) versus
DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"1. That the Carrier's decision to remove Illinois
Division Truck Driver R. A. Schultz from service was unjust.
2. That the Carrier now reinstate Claimant Schultz
with seniority, vacation, all benefit rights unimpaired and
pay for all wage loss as a result of investigation held
October 29, 1990 continuing forward and/or otherwise made
whole, because the Carrier did not introduce substantial,
creditable (sic.) evidence that proved that the Claimant
violated the rules enumerated in their decision, and even if
Claimant violated the rules enumerated in the decision,
permanent removal from service is extreme and harsh
discipline under the circumstances."
FINDINGS:
This Public Law Board No. 4823 finds that the parties
herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has
jurisdiction.
On August 2; 1990, Carrier's Medical Director wrote
Claimant at his last known address on file, in pertinent
part, as follows:
"You have been subject to periodic,urine drug screening
due to previously testing positive. Having failed to obey
my instructions to provide a specimen for testing, you are
medically disqualified from service. Your return to service
is dependent upon accomplishing BOTH of the following within
30 calendar days of receipt of this letter:
1. Obtaining an evaluation and clearance to return
to work from the Santa Fe Employee Assistance
Counselor in your area, whose telephone number
appears below. (Since this process may take time
to schedule and report, allow at least ten days
before your deadline to contact.the Counselor).
P/.
B - if
e
R.
Case No. 27 Page 2
...AWARD N0. 27
"2. After you have completed Step 1 ~bove, you must
provide a supervised specimen which tests
negative. When you are ready, take this letter
and the enclosed test requisitio form to the
office of Dr. J. E. Gottemoller.~
FAILURE TO FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS AND ACCOMPLISH
BOTH REQUIREMENTS WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS
LETTER WILL RESULT IN MY ADVISING THE DIVI
THEN MAY BE SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
This letter was returned to sender account
order - Addressee unknown."
On August 21, 1990, Carrier's Medical
identical letter, to Claimant at a new addr~
signed for (receipted) by Erica Johnson.
On September 25, 1990, Carrier's Medial Direct-or
Carrier's Regional Manager (with copy to Claimant), as
follows:
~ subject to
previously
b~ey the Medical
a
vide a urine
inn 5 (five)
ry 13, 1989
He has
Assistance
Counselor and provide a supervised specimen which
tests negative. This information is being
relayed to you for formal administrative action."
OF RECEIPT OF THIS
ION MANAGER. YOU
n
"Box Closed - No
(Director wrote an
ss and it was
"The above-named employee has been
periodic urine drug screening due to
testing positive. Having failed to
0
Departments (sic.) instructions to pr
drug screen specimen for testing with
calendar days of receipt of the Janua
letter he was medically disqualified.
failed to contact a Santa Fe Employee
On October 4, 1990, Carrier's Regional
Claimant, in pertinent part, as follows:
"You are hereby notified to atten investigation at Superintendent's Off
Room, 3611 W. 38th Street, Chicago, I
1:30 P.M., on October 17, 1990.
This investigation will be condu
mine the facts and place responsibili
regarding your alleged failure' to fol
tions given you by the Medical Direct
letter dated August 21, 1990, in poss of General Rules B, C, 1007, 1020 and
Safety and General Rules for all Empl October 29, 1989."
Manager wrote
d
formal
ice Conference
llinois at
i
o
cited to deter
y, if if any,
lIow instruc-
o'r-System by
~le violation
1026
0£
es effective
wrote
P
l- R _ q ga3
Case
No.
27 Page 3 AWARD
NO.
27
. At the request of the General Chairman, the
investigation was postponed until October 29, 1990.
Claimant did not attend the investigation, which is
tantamount to a plea of no defense.
Following the investigation, carrier found the claimant
responsible for violation of the rules cited in the notice
of investigation, and removed him from service for his
responsibility in connection therewith.
Based on the record before it, the Board finds no basis
for overturning or modifying the Carrier's decision in the
instant case.
AWARD: Claim denied.
G.-Michael Gdl6n, Can
2
Employee Memb r
-zWzI
:2