The Board, upon the whole record and on the evidence, finds that the parties herein are carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Hoard is duly constituted by agreement of the parties: that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing.
The pertinent facts are not in dispute. On February 14, 1994, Claimant provided a urine sample for random drug testing. He adulterated his specimen with glutaraldehyde (Urinaid) co avoid detection of marijuana usage.
Carrier's Rule 607 prohibits dishonesty and warns of dismissal from service for violations. In addition, Carrier's Rule 9, regarding the use of Alcohol and Drugs provides as follows:
The Organization contends that to punishment of dismissal is excessive in light of the circumstances. It maintains that Claimant had _6 years of exemplary service to his credit that should mitigate the situation. The Organization also cited prior awards in support of its position. =n addition, the Organization emphasizes that the =RA only requires a 9 month disoualificacion £or tampering with a specimen. Such tampering is treated the same as a refusal.
The role of this Board is limited to that olf an appellate review of the record developed by the parties in their handling of the matter on the property. oar charge is to determine whether the record contains substantial evidence to support Carrier's disciplinary action. on the record before us, we find that Carrier's action is supported by substantial evidence. The Claim, therefore, must be denied.