1. The Carrier violated the Agreement on Juno 7, 2006 when Claimant, C. D. Morris, was dismissed for violating Section 7.4 of the BNSF Policy on the Use of Alcohol and Drugs, for refusal to fast.

2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in part (1), the Carrier shall Immediately reinstate the Claimant's seniority, vacation and all other rights restored, remove any mention of this Incident from his personal record, and make him whole for arty wagon lost beginning June 7, 2005 forward.

Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties heroin are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board is duly constitvbad by Agreement, has jurisdiction of tire Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.

Claimant was off work in excess of six months. The Cariara policy requires a drug and alcohol test before returning to work. Claimant was scheduled for such a bas! on March 29, 2005, He appeared promptly and on his first attempt to provide sufficient urine that cook! be tested was unsuccessful.

Pursuant to Rules governing drug and alcohol testing, if the Indhrtdwl does not furnish a sample quantity to be tested, he/she has three hours in which to do so.

CIaImarrYs three-hour window commenced at 0731, From 0731 until 1050, he

drank approximately 40 ounces of liquid. He also walked around the building twits, yet he could not, or did not, furnish a sufficient quantity of urine at one thne that could be tested.

Claimant was referred to a doctor to determine If Claimant had any physical aiknerto or a shy bladder that hindered his ability to furnish a sufficient amount of urine that could be tested. After the doctor's examination, the Carrier was advised Claimant did not have a medical impairment that would prevent him from furnishing the required amount of urine.

The Carrier then wrote Claimant on April 14, 2006, advising an Investigation was established to determine his. "responsibility, H any, for refusing to participate hr required testing alter being properly notified ...."

Following the Investigation, the Carrier on June T, 2005, wrote Claimant as follows, advising him that:

"...as a resole of formal Investigation that was held on May 10, 2005,

concerning your refusal to participate In required te:ft after being

properly notified; you are dismissed from employment for violation of

Section 7.4 of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Policy on the Use of Alcohol

and Drugs, dated September i, 2003 "

During. the Investigation, Claimant's Repro argued that the Claimrrrt did

The employee who cannot or will not furnish sufficient urine during a three-hour period is considered refusing m participate in the drug testing; unless, of counts, them exists a medical reason why is cook! not be accomplished.

The on-property handling of the clean on Claimant's behalf argued Claimant did

This Board will not challenge the medical doctor's findings.

The discipline will not be challenged.

AWARD