Parties: Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
 to and
 Dispute Southern Pacific Transportation Lines
 St. Louis Southwestern Railway Lines
 Statement
 of Claim: The employees respectfully request the personal record of
 Engineer T. L. Null be expunged as per Carrier's letter of
 January 31, 1992 and that he be returned to service from
 which withheld with full seniority rights and with full pay
 for time lost, including vacation credits, plus any and all
 expenses resulting from the investigation and dismissal from
 the first date of lost service up to the date he is allowed
 to assume service.

 Findings: The Board has jurisdiction by reason of the
 parties Agreement establishing the Board therefor.
 Engineer B. R. Null, the father of the Claimant,
 Engineer T. L. Null, on August 11, 1991 took a call from the
 Caller's office on behalf of his son and when he was unable
 to contact his son worked the trip in his son's place
 without permission of Carrier.
 The Claimant was notified to attend a formal
 investigation in connection therewith. As a result thereof
 the Carrier concluded therefrom that Claimant was culpable.
 He was dismissed from service as discipline therefor.
 As a result of the first appeal it was agreed that the
 Claimant was to be returned to service without pay. He was,
 of course, subject to a return to duty physical examination,
 including a drug screen, and rules recertification.
 After the Claimant reported to the designated lab for
 his urine specimen, on December 18, 1991, the drug screen
 showed positive for cocaine.
 The Claimant was notified to attend a formal
 investigation on a charge of a Rule G violation in
 connection with the cocaine incident. The investigation was
 postponed until and held on January 27, 1992. The Claimant
 was notified that the Carrier concluded that he was culpable
 of the charge. He was dismissed from service on January 31,
        1992 for the alleged use of cocaine. He was concomitantly

                              -2- Award No. 2


          to meet with the Employee Assistance counselor within five days which he failed to do.


          Appeal was made to the Superintendent on March 2, 1992 and a request was made for a conference thereon. The Superintendent did not set a date for conference nor did the Superintendent respond to the appeal. A second appeal was made on May 11, 1992 and denied on July 9, 1992.


          Like Award No. 1 this case must also be conditionally sustained for the procedural failure to meet thereafter and deny the claim at the local level. The Board finds that the portion of the claim reading "plus any and all expenses resulting from the investigation and dismissal" etc. or similar phrases, that portion of the claim is not sustained unless that quoted portion results from a rule in the agreement.


          The nature of the Claimant's offense and the recognition of the FRA Regulations of Engineer's skills impels our Board to insure that in the best interest of all concerned that the Claimant enters a program of abstinence, that he report to the Employee Assistance Counselor and enter a long period of random alcohol and drug testing. He will, of course, be required to take a return to service physical examination.


Award: Claim sustained as per findings.

          Order: Carrier is directed to make this Award effective within thirty (30) days of date of issuance shown below.


?t. E. Dean, Employee Member M. L. Gdldstein, Carrier Member

                          Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman and Neutral Member


                          Issued September 24, 1993.