BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5831 AUG 1 9 1996
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAX F.MPLOYEA M. W. E.
and
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
(Former Oltlahoma-Kansas-Texas Railroad)
Case No. 10
fiIATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. The dismissal of R C. Hill, SSN 430-23-2163, for
allegedly using an illegal or unauthorized drug as evidenced by the
positive test result of a follow up drug test given on June 27, 1994 was
unwarranted, without just and sufficient cause, on the basis of unproven
charges and in violation of the agreement.
2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1)
above, the Claimant shall be reinstated to the Carrier's service with
seniority and all other rights unimpaired, his record shall be cleared of the
charges leveled against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss
suffered. -
FINDINGS:
This claim arose when the Claimant ryas dismissed from the Carrier's service alter
testing positive for marijuana in his system during a random drug screen on June 7,
1994. Claimant's record included a previous dismissal in 1990 and then a reinstatement
in 1991 after he completed the Carrier's Fxuployee Assistance Program. The Claimant.
was reinstated to service but only if he met certain conditions. These conditions included
being subject
to
random follow-up drug screens for a period
of five
years, indefinitely
remaining drug free, and avoiding any violation of any Carrier rules dealing with drugs or
alcohol.
589 -~ n
After a hearing was conducted, whichthe Claimant did not attend, it was
determined that he was guilty of not meeting the conditions of his reinstatement. ale did
not remain drug-free. Consequently, the Claimant was dismissed from service.
'floe parties being unable to resolve the issue, this matter comes before this Board.
'this Board has reviewed the procedural arguments raised by the Organization and
we find them to be without merit.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case and we find that
there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that Claimant was guilty of
failing to live up to the terms of his reinstatement. The record reveals that the Claimant
was reinstated on December 4, 1991, on a leniency basis with several conditions. One of
those conditions was
to
remain drug-free.
On
June
27, 1994, he failed a random, drug
test; the results showing positive for marijuana. The investigation was held on duly 2$,
1994, and the Claimant did not attend. The results of Claimant's positive drug test were
introduced into evidence. Claimant was notified both before' and after the hearing. The
evidence that was developed during the investigation established that the Claimant had
violated the terms of his reinstatement.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in the record to
support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed.
This Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its actions
to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
2. . .
5839- (o
The Claimant in this case had been previously terminated for violating the
Carrier's rules relating to drugs and alcohol. He was put back to work on a
leniency basis
with. several conditions. He failed to live up to those conditions and it was proven that he
had unlawful substances in his system on the date of the random test. This Board cannot
find that the Carrier acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously when it again
terminated his employment as a result of his failure to live up to the terms of his
reinstatement. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
PETER
A.
MEYARS
Neutral r
Carrier Member Organization Member
DATED:-
(R~b
DATED:
-24-e6
3