Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board Is duty constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.
Claimant, on July 18, 2003, was charged with a violation of Rule 1.5. He waived his right to an investigation at that time and was returned to service under specific conditions, one of which was the Carrier's right to subject Claimant to random testing.
The test was scheduled at 0500 hours, but Claimant was not tested until 0710 hours. At that time, his breathalyzer was .019%. Any reading below .02% Is not
Page 2 Award No.The' record is somewhat confusing as to why the one hour ten minute delay occurred. One version was the Individual doing the testing was late, the other reason was that Claimant at first refused the test contending he did drink quite a bit the night before and he was apprehensive about passing the test. The only two positives In this case Is the 0710 hour reading was .019°l0, and that flowing from the July 20.03 conviction of a Rule 1.5 violation, Claimant's conduct was still being monitored by Carrier's medical service (actually a contracted service).
Tastimony developed that after an evaluation of Claimant's conduct and the latest test results, It was that Departments opinion that Claimant required a more stringent treatment for alcoholism- They ordered Claimant to admit hlmsetf to a treatment facility some 800 miles from his home. Claimant drove to the facility but refused to admit himself,
A short time after his refusal, he was again encouraged to enter the facility and accepted an airline ticket, but after arriving and talking with some of the staff, he again refused to admit himself.
Claimant advanced several reasons as to why he would not commit to enter the recommended facility, mainly being prevented from receiving visitors or talking to them over the phone as he was In the process of getting a divorce, which he contends his son was taking hard.
The charge for which Claimant was deemed culpable by the Carrier was the refusal to abide by the instructions of the medical people and noticing else.