PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5905
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES )
Case No. 2
and )
Award No. 2
ELGIN, JOLIET AND EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY )
Martin H. Malin, Chairman & Neutral Member
D. D. Bartholomay, Organization Member
J. F. Ingham, Carrier Member
Hearing Date: October 10, 1996
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System
Committee of
the Brotherhood that:
1. The dismissal of Garage-Serviceman-Richard J.
Delgado for his alleged vioation of Rule
G
on
September 1, 1995 and his alleged violation of a
September 17, 1993 conditional reinstatement was
without just and sufficient cause (System File SAC-16
95/UM-20-95).
2. Claimant Richard J. Delgado shall now be allowed
the remedy prescribed in Rule 57(c).
FINDINGS:
Public Law Board No. 5905, upon the whole record and
all of the evidence, finds and holds that Employee and
Carrier are employee and carrier within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended; and, that the Board has
jurisdiction over the dispute herein; and, that the parties
to the dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon
and did participate therein.
In March 1993 Claimant was dismissed from service for
violating Rule G, having tested positive for THC. On
September 17, 1993-, Carrier agreed to. reinstate Claimant
conditioned, among other things, on his contacting Carrier's
Employee Assistance Program Administrator, undertaking and
P&3
/4uZ) .59Ds
2 ,¢ 4"
completing recommended treatment and aftercare programs, and
remaining drug and alcohol free while subjectto duty. On
January 6, 1994, the EAPA approved Claimant to return to
work. However, on January 5, 1994, a hearing was held to
investigate charges that Claimant had filed fraudulent
claims for unemployment benefits. On January 13, 1994,
Claimant was found guilty of the charge and dismissed from
service. Claimant's claim was submitted to Public Law Board
No. 5600 which sustained the claim and ordered Claimant
reinstated. On September 1, 1995, Claimant was given a
return-to-duty physical exam which included a drug screen.
Claimant tested positive for THC.
On September 11, 1995, Carrier notified Claimant to
report for an investigation on September 14, 1995. The
notice charged Claimant with violating Rule G and the terms
of his conditional reinstatement. The hearing was postponed
to and held on September 27, 1995. On October 5, 1995
Carrier advised Claimant that he had been found guilty of
the charges and was dismissed from service.
The organization contends that Claimant was prevented
from completing the EAP program because of his dismissal for -
allegedly filing fraudulent unemployment benefits claims.
The organization maintains that, because that dismissal was
held to have violated the Agreement, Claimant should not be
held responsible for his positive drug test on September 1, -
1995. Carrier argues that Claimant was responsible for his
positive drug test and that the result violated Rule G and
the conditions of his prior conditional reinstatement.
The Board has reviewed the record carefully. The
organization does not contest the drug test. Rather, it
argues that Claimant was prevented from completing the
rehabilitation program by his prior dismissal which was
overturned by PLB 5600. We do not agree. At the
investigation, Claimant explained his failure to complete
the rehabilitation program:
I was in the process of getting, making conditions
that was stipulated in the letter of September 17,
1993 when I was terminated again by the Carrier.
So I didn't finish meeting my conditions with the
agreement because I was terminated again.- What
would be the reason of meeting conditions if I'm
no longer an employee. It would be irrelevant on
my part.
Of course, the reason for continuing with the
rehabilitation program would be to deal with his substance -
abuse problem. Claimant chose, on his own accord, not to
continue with the program. Moreover, if, upon being
recalled pursuant to PLB 5600's award, Claimant believed
that he was not ready to return to work because he had not _.
p`a ~,~,
.59os
3 ii~'O A%b ~--
continued with the rehabilitation program, it was incumbent
on him to advise Carrier. Instead, he proceeded to take the
return-to-duty physical and tested positive for a controlled
substance. We see no reason to disturb his dismissal.
AWARD
Claim denied. -
artin H. Malin, Chairman
. F. Ingham, D. Bartholomay,
Carrier Member = orga 'zation Member
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, February 7, 1397.