r-eRTIEE TO D=SPUTS' _nitad -ransportation union
 .AtNison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway

 cTATEMENT OF C`.AIM : `1r. .a. : Chance be rainstatad wit` all
 -fights s,;nimpaired and with pay for all
 time lost, including time for attending
 formal investigation.
 FINDINGS:
 The Board, upon consideration of the antire record and all the evidence, ,`finds that the parties are Carr:ar and Employee ~:=hin the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. and =`;at =ha Board has _urisdiction aver the dispute :nvclvsd herein..
 The record indicates that both parties raised various procedural objections on the property. As stated in oral presentations before the Board, the Carrier and the Organization have' igreed ':J withdraw the procedural objections on a without prejudice ",5si3.


..:'_'_ be considered on '_t a merits.
 On December =3, :391 Claimant was advised by letter to attend a .formal investigation scheduled for Zanuary 9. 1992 " . . . to determine the facts and Place responsibility, if any, concerning report you allegedly failed to obey iistructions of Rule 9.0(a) of the Santa Fe Policy on the Use of Alcohol and Drugs on December 60, 1991, in possible violation of Rule 9.0(a) of the Santa Fe Policy on the Use of Alcohol and Drugs, March 1991 Edition, _nvolving possible violations of Rules A, 9, C, 0, 600 and 607, General Code :` Operating Rules, Second Edition, effective October ??, 1989 and
 -LB N0. 5584 - 2 - AWARD N0. 2
 CASE NO.
 supplement :o pule 507, as contained on page =90 of the System Time
 -able No. _ -n affect April -, 1991."
 'In December 25, 1991, the December 23, 1991 letter was
 amended to include the =ossible violation of Rule G.
 Aftar a series of postponements. the investigation was
 held on February 18, 1992. on that same date, Claimant was notifi
 fied that he was being removed from Carrier's service.
 There are no significant disputes as to the facts.
 Claimant tested positive for a controlled substance in 1987 and
 again in 1991. He does not Iany the usage that led to the positive

 *esulta, nor 13 there any debate over the accuracy of the tests.
 '-nder the Carrier's Policy on Use of Alcohol and Drugs,
 dismissal `nom service _a prescribed :n the following circum
 stanaces - -








PI-5 V0. 1884 - 3 AWARD NO. 2
 ASE N0. 2
 Having tested positive twice :n lass than five years, the .`:rat Positive test being :n =anuary, 1987 and the second in December, _991, Claimant _ubjected himself to dismissal under paragraph (a) of the policy.
 -hA Organization maintains, however, that permanent dismissal in Claimant's case is unduly harsh when viewed in the light of the difference in carrier's policy with respect to substance abuse as it existed in 1987 and the policy that was adopted in 1991. Specifically, the organization argues that in 1987 reinr-tatement .following removal from service for a Positive reading was .rerely contingent upon the employee providing a negative test result within thirty days of his removal'from service. Participation in the Carrier's Employee Assistance Program was not required, whereas under the policy adopted in 1991, participation :s the Program is mandatory and reinstatement is conditioned to the successful completion of the Program. The presumption, according to the Organization, is that had Claimant had the benefit of the Assistance Program the .first time around, in 1987, it _s unlikely the second incident would have occurred.
 The Board fi^ds the argument unavailing. Carrier's Employee Asai3tance Program, while not mandatory, was nonetheless available to Claimant had he wished to take advantage of it in 1987. =or his own reasons he chose not to.
 The record clearly establishes that Claimant was guilty of violating Rule a, his second offense, the seriousness of which in this industry cannot be debated.
 ?_9 N0. °584 - 4 - AWARD V0. ?
 CASE NC. 2

 AWARD= The claim. ie ~:a~adC.

                                  ^' 24i"-z- . M. Ho , Carri Member


                          C. D. Davis, Organization Member


7atood this day of , 4994 ,