released to
return to work on January 19, 1993.1F
on January
30, 1993 the Carrier wrote the Claimant to formally
advise that the company investigation initially set for October'
6, 199, cad than postponed at the request of the
Organization,
"hag been cancelled."
The Claimant
filed the above cited claim with the Superintendent
as $ebruary
17, 1993, The latter
advised the
Claimant by letter
on March I, 7.893 that the
cldiTa
was being denied far the :ollowing reasons:
"First
of all, the progression of your claim has rat
bean presented to the
proper afi'icer. Secondly, certain
assertions made in connection with
your period of
nan
s8ttrics are Without merit.
Thirdly, it is ambiguous with
respect to time lost.
Your chin i$ for the period
of time from September 3b,
1992, through ;anuary 25, 1997. Crew call recordings
indicate you wore notified at apptox:mateLy 1745 hours
on November 30, 1992, 4that you had bears
released
to
return to work. Any
claim beyond that
time is moat.
YQa did not place
yourself under a doctor's care until
aacesbar 3, 1993, and did
riot notify the Carrier
of such
until December 8, 1997.
Furthermore, the Carrier and your
union have an agree
ment
providing
for a 80-day time limit on aLl grievance
claims and any time
beyond December 20, 199, is beyond
this time frame. Your claim is denied for each
o!
the
reasons stated-"
As with the
handling of the request for a drug retest,
AWARD NO.
CASE HQ.
dispute relative to root only time limits for the filing of the
instant claim, but likewise the officers to wham
the claim and
appeals were to ht directed.
;n
the opinion of the
Board, it may not be concluded, as argued
by the Carrier, that the
November 18, 1992 letter from
the prtssi
dent of the Greystone F3salth Sciences, supra, supports a finding
that the initial test would not be considered a; false positive.
Clearly, the Claimant had the right to have his urine sample be
:crested by
a designated referee laboratory and the last remains
that such laboratory reported on November ii, 1992, supra, that
it "failed to reconfirm" the initial test
results. That
the
President at Graystorts Health Sciences would offer that it was
the finding of
two consultant-experts (unnamed) in
forensic
toxicology testing which it had retained that the initial,
or
Nichols institute, test eras not in attar or In any way incorrect,
oust be viewed as self-serving and
of no farce and effect as con
cerns the right of the Claimant to rely strictly upon the findings of the designated re!eree laboratory.
Although it may well be as the organization argues that the
Claimant became distraught rind
experienced
mental. stress, anxiety
and depression as a result o: the Rule "G"
allegation and
charge,
no probative evidence
as
present to support
wiah a contention.
The Keadow Wood Hospital document is merely an acknowledgment
statement signed by the Claimant that ha was evaluated by the
Hospital Psychiatric Assessment Teats an t~cveluber 25, 1999 and
that he understands xecotimandations and plans that were expld3ned
to him to help him better cope with an unspecified "situation."
The statement from
Or, Xaagara, dated January 13, :993, states
the Claimant was under his care :or the dates of December 3, 1992
through January 19, 1893 and that
hoe
is able to return to work.
Certainly, neither of these statements show or suggest that any
treatment of the Claimant was directly or indirectly related to
.he random
drug test findings.
Under the
circumstances, the Board finds no basis to hold that
the Claimant is entitled to
compensation for the period of time
he was reportedly
under a doctor's care.
In regard to argument involving contractual. time limits fax the
filing a»d appeal of the claim. The Beard finds reason to believe
that the Claimant did not tile the claim
after being
notified ha
could return to work an November SD, 1992 because he was undergoing treatment by ox through the Meadow Wood Hospital and tberRa;ter under the care of a doctor, or circumstances which he would
urge were related to his initial removal from service. Therefore,
we find the Claimant has demonstrated sufficient reason for any
purported delay in the filing of the claim, I.e., that it would
be proper to file a claim only after he was physically determined
able to return to work.
Further, as concerns the organization argument that
the
Company
A,
13 'VD, 3v.a3
nWMRQ N0. 15
investigation was not cancelled v.^.~i1 January 20,
1993, and that
a claim could not be
node be_*ore such ci:ne. While there :ray be
soma merit
in
this position the Organization takes uncle: same
otter circumstances, and i: ;nap well be that the Claimant was of
t belief ha had to await such action before filing a claim, the
Board believes such
happenstance should be properly recognized as
an administrative followup.
Certainly, the Claimant knew or
should hays known when he was told that he could return to work
on the basis a! the rarest findings that there remained no reason
for a company nearing.
In the light of the above considerations, the Board finds that
the Claimant is entitled to compensation tax time lace during the
period September 3a., 1992, the date he was removed from service,
to November 30, 199, the data h: was notified he could return to
service, In addition, the Claimant is entitled to reimbursement
of the $20.00 which he was required to expend Ear the laboratory
transfer of his urine sample from the Carrier contract laboratory
to
the designated referee laboratory. This latter determination
is laude strictly ors the basis that the rarest findings 81d not
confirm
the
positive findings of the intiai test. The
other por
tions of the claim are denied as being without merit or agreement
support.
AWARD:.
Claim sustained to the extent set :arch in the above Finding:.
Robert E, Peterson, Chairman
and hteutral Mernbar
cacti;--W.
Harrison
Carrier M:nb*r
Kansas City, MO
October
eL) , 1994
Foul C. Thamps!Organization Msm sr