carrier's dismissal of Claimant Carl Lucas was
ithout just and sufficient muse, was not based ors any

 and eras done in an arbitrary wholLy beyond the scope of the

(b) Claimant Lucas shall be reinstated into carrier's service with 1l seniority entitlements and shall be compensated for all last wages, including overtime benefits which would accrue to hire, as provided


for in Rule lot the

 Agreement

 `the Claimant was subject to n investigative hearing under the

Mowing Charge:

Development of facts and determination of your responsibility, if any, lin that on Friday, June 28, 202, you intentionally failed to participate in a follow-up drug test pursuant to a Mule G Waiver Agreement (specifically Item ) signed eon October 26, 2001. Your non--compliance with these instructions and failure to cooperate with the testing procedures, the latter of


equates to a positive test result, constitute
 The record shows that the Claimnt was directed to submit to follow-up drug and alcohol test ors June 28 , 2002 , as part J of the

 for the

 Ire could nod be located on the property, and

 his

 veh )'_a could not be found in tring lot.

At approximately 1: 10 p.m,, the Rodmaster received a teleh~xcalf. from the Claimant, he tied that he had suffered an


The carrier concluded that

 the laimant's departure from the test site was a "failure to

 ::.r r the Carrier's Drug and Alcohoi

 ui:~Jline, to equate to a positive test result.

 The Organization argues

 the Claimant simply acted in

 emergency and that the: Carrier

 should,; ,.mde f urth° tiff cirts to locate the Claimant, ~~_~ludinc~

 a telephone call to the Claimant's home.

 The Carrier responds by

 that the Claimant could have availed himself otoilet

 facilities on the property; further, he waited four hour: h~'~e

 condition.

 It must be remembered

 tie Claimant was in a "sc~nd

hnc" situation, having earlier admitted to are alcohol offe~,ise

-2-

p(- a
Nb
. L4a-v9
A,V AaZPO
                                                        ~Z


and submitting to the specific Rule G Waiver conditions. The Board find.:: the Carrier properly concluded that the Claimant had taken deliberate action to avoid the test. Any delay could well have a3~--:-ted the test result. The Claimant's contention as to a iac-:-f-,cal emergency did not justify tiis disappearance from the test site and/or his delay in advising the Carrier for four hours.

Refusal or delay in submitting to a drug/alcohol test is established by the Carrier's policy and by general practice as the equivalent of a positive test result. Under the Rule G Waiver provisions, dismissal from service was the inevitable result.


                          W A R D

                                                          i


      Claim denied.


. Jr., Chairman nd Neural Member

                B. A. W TER, Employee Member


                CHELLE A. MIELE, arrier Member


        t:.


NEW YORK, NY

 DATED: t: ..~ o2I~ a-3

      ' ~~r~ -3--