1. The Carrier violated the Agreement on November 8, 2006 when Claimant, J. C. Hecker, was dism for a violation of Maintenance of Way Operating Rule t.6 when he failed to comply with instructions from the EAP Manager, and the conditions of his conditional suspension; and

2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in part 1 the Carrier shall immediately return the Claimant to service with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired, remove any mention of this incident from Claimant's personal record, and make Clamant whole for all time lost commencing November 8, 2006.

Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the pa 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

"...for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and circumstances concerning your failure to comply with the guidelines of the Waiver you signed on May B, 2006 and failure to comply with instructions of the Employee Assistance Manager regarding treatment and education for substance abuse.

Arrange for representative and/or s, If desired, In accordance with

governing provisions of prevailing schedule rules.

This is to advise you that you are being withhold from service pending Its of the Investigation ...: °

On April 21, 2005, Claimant tested positive for prohibited drugs, waived his rights to an investigation and agreed to follow the instructions of the FAP personnel. As directed, Claimant did enter a drug rehabilitation program but received an unsstbsfactory report when he failed to complete the program.

Because he violated the terms: of his conditional suspension, the Carrier set up the Investigation referred to in the start of this Award.

A review of the transcript finds Claimant admitting he did not follow tire instructions of the Medical & Environmental Health Department.

The burden of proof in disciplinary cases Is upon the shoulders of the Caller, but when Claimant admitted he diet not follow the Instructions, the burden of proof was clearly established. Claimant pleads for one mom chance, but because of his behavior this time, the piss will be denied.

A D