PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5560
Award No.
Case No. 310
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
RARTIE$ TO DISPUTE:
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Raliroad (Former
(ATSF Railway Company
ST&TIEMEhJT OF CLfM:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when Claimant, S. P. Fisher, was
dismissed on June 8, 2008 for obtaining a 2`d level S violation within
3B months when he tested positive for a controlled substance on
January 1$, 2006; 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 Ciamant whole
for all time lost commencing January 1, 2006.
FINDINGS
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 duly cons by Agreement, has jurisdiction o? the
Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispuPre were given due notice of
the hearing thereon.
On January 24, 2006, Carrier wrote Claimant as follows:
"The results of your Reasonable Cause test conducted on January 18,
2006, revealed the presence of a controlled substance. As a result of this
positive drug test, you
are
not ail to perform any service for BNSF
Railway until further
The Medical & Environmental Health Department will request your
supervisor formally remove you from service, ins results of an
investigation to determine If you have vi the BNSF Policy on the use
Phi tFD,SB5D
Page 2 Award No.
Case No. 310
of Alcohol and Drugs, dated September 1, 2003."
After mutual postponements, the investigation was held on May 10, 2006.
Carrier diet on June 9, 2006, write Claimant advising his seniority and employment
rights were terminated.
The Investigation Itself Is different In that only two Individuals were recorded in
depth: the Interrogating Officer and Claimant's Representative. Claimant's
Representative quoted segments of Carrier's Drug and Alcohol authority and the
Interrogating Officer read
Into
the record
Claimant's failed drug test result.
No objection was raised of the propriety of the Investigation when the
Interrogating Officer read into the record Claimant's teat results. Ordinarily, such
happenstance could very well derail the Investigation, and probably would have had It
not been for a letter Claimant wrote the Division Engineer, reading in part as follows:
'°1 would like you to know I accept
full responsibility of what I did.
There is no one to blame by
myself ...."
With the aforequoted letter read into
the record, with no objection thereto voiced
by Claimant, the
letter of admission of guilty supports
wholeheartedly Carrier's
obligation to furnish sufficient evidence of Claimant's guilt. Without that letter, the
whole Investigation could readily have teen voided as denying the employee a fair trial.
Furthermore, with Claimant having one prior serious Rules violation on his
record, the
Carrier clearly followed its established guidelines of dismissal.
Claim denied.
PL6 M®
Rage 3
Award No.
Gage No. 310
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to
the Ciaimant(gj not be made.
Robert L. Hlcks, Ghaimtan Neutral Member
David b. Tanner, For the Employees
Dated:
NIA'o-A /(~l
;'>
Samantha Rogers, For theasier