Parties Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
 to and
 Dispute St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
 (Southern Pacific Lines)
 Statement
 of Claim: "Herewith appeal to your decision of San Antonio Division Superintendent
 C. Bradley, his letter of March 25, 1996 denying the request to return
 SSW Engineer V. C. Smith to service a per the recommendation from the
 Employee Assistance Counselor and pay him for all time lost from the date
 recommended for return to service and the date service actually allowed.
 Engineer Smith has been dismissed from the service of this Company by
 letter dated February 22, 1996 as result of an investigation held February
 15, 1996 on a charge of violating rule 1.5 of the Safety and General Rules.
 This appeal is being amended, under the current provisions ofBLE Articles
 41 and 71 to expunge the discipline letter of February 22, 1996 from the
 personal record of Engineer Smith with full pay for all time lost resulting
 from the suspension, investigation and dismissal."

 Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of this case by reason of the parties
 Agreement establishing this Board therefor.
 The Claimant, employed as a Fireman-Engineer, since July 22,
 1974, upon reporting to work on December 4, 1995 was advised that his
 assignment had been selected for a Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
 random drug and alcohol screen. Three (3) urine samples were collected.
 The Claimant's third urine sample tested positive for the presence of
 cocaine and cannoabinoids (marijuana) metabolites.
 The Claimant was suspended from service pending the subsequent
 formal investigation which was held on February 15, 1996.
 The Carrier concluded therefrom that the Claimant was culpable of the
 charges placed against him. The Claimant was notified under date of

February 22, 1996 that he was suspended from service as discipline. therefor.

 The General Chairman on March 6, 1996 wrote the Superintendent, Carl Bradley, and in the last paragraph stated:

 "Appeal is hereby directed to you under the provisions of current BLE Articles 41 and 71 to return Engineer Smith to service as per the recommendation from the Employee Assistance Counselor, which is in compliance with 240.117, and pay him for all time lost from the date recommended for return to service and the actual date service allowed. If you are not agree~abt ,-please advice daxe.nd time for on-the-~Rrty conference, to firther discuss this matter " (emphasis added)

 The Superintendent on March 25, 1996 responded stating in his last paragraph:

 "your peaty and rigtectc for pay for time lost are reap fife deer. If you would like to discuss this further, let me know when and where it would be convenient. Also, if i can be of further assistance please let me know." (emphasis added)

      Agreement Article 71-2 provides:


"1f the engineer is not satisfied with the result of the investigation he shall have the right to appeal his case through the General Chairman to the Superintendent, and then if necessary to the General Manager."

      Article 71-2 was amended in Article 41 to read:


"41-8. Appeals taken under the provisions of Article 71-2 of the
 Engineers' Agreement must be filed in writing to the Superintendent within
 sixty (60) days of the date discipline is assessed. The Superintendent will
 render written decision on the appeal within sixty (60) days of receipt; if
 conference is re Aueeted in the initial aPPeal such conference. %rill he
 ^orznted t8athin,,qixtv (601 dW and prior to decision hein& rend .fired
 Appeals to the highest officer designated from the decision of the
 Superintendent must be filed in writing within sixty (60) days of the
 Superintendent's decision. The decision of the highest officer designated
                      -3- Award No. 24


will be rendered in writing within sixty (60) days of the day received and such decision shall be final and barred from further handling unless, within (1) year from the date of decision, proceedings are instituted by the employee or his duly authorized representative before a tribunal having jurisdiction pursuant to law or agreement." (emphasis added)

 Consistency is a virtue. Our Award No. I pointed out the Board's standard for review of claims as an appellate body. Therein Article 41-8 Appeals was involved. In part the Board held:

 "The Superintendent's procedural failure to hold conference and deny the case within said 60 days time validated the claim as made. Payment should have been made at the local level because the merits of the case cannot be reached.

 Time limits rules are negotiated by the parties. The time limits is the parties creation and they expect to be bound thereby. As Chairman and Neutral Member Joseph Lazar stated in Award No. 1 of hLB 371 S:

 °When time limitations, for the performance of an act embodied to the Agreement, with precision, as in Rule 7 the agreement between the parties, the parties contractually obligated to comply with them. The Board is governed by the Memorandum of Agreement of September 6, 1984 between the parties The Board expressly does not have the authority to change existing agreements or establish rules."'

 Our Award No. 2 was similarly sustained for a similar procedural violation of Article 41-8. Also, our Award Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were similarly decided which again prevented the Board from reaching of the merits of the claims in those awards.

 This claim will likewise be sustained for the same reasons subject to whatever restraints or limitations are placed on the Claimant by the Employee Assistance Program (EAP).
                              -4- Award No. 24


Award: Claim sustained.

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


D. E. Thompsontmployee Member Kelly S 'nan, Carrier Member

                        Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman and Neutral Member


                        Issued February 14, 1997.