CSX TRANSPORTATION

              Case No. 66


    Appeal of the dismissal issued to Claimant W. Wallace as a result of

    investigation held on November 7, 2006, in regards to the Claimant's

    second Operating Rule G violation within five years.


FINDINGS:
 The Claimant was employed by the Carrier as a trackman at the time of this claim.
 On April 6, 2005, the Claimant agreed to the Rule G, C-2 option of enrolling in and abiding by the terms of the Carrier's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) as a result of having been charged on March 28, 2005, with a Rule G and/or Safety Rule 21 violation for testing positive for cocaine metabolities on March 16, 2005. A condition of enrolling in the Carrier's EAP program is that any report of non-compliance with the Claimant's after-care plan within five years of his return to service would result in a hearing on the original Rule G/Safety Rule 21 charge. On October 26, 2005, the Claimant also signed a Substance Abuse Treatment contract.
 On July 7, 2006, the Claimant underwent a company return-to-work toxicological test and tested positive a second tune for cocaine metabolites,
                                                  _5 L®(o

                                              r bwrcge-6d -

thereby violating the terms of his after-care plan and subjecting himself to being charged with his original violation of Rule C'7 and/or Safetv Ruh-, ) 1 and vinlatinn of his Substance Abuse Treatment contract, as well as charges brought forth by the

 ('err;ar fnr *ho n v,il ... O;a;V~ s~a .. ..1t. vu..aiva iva. uW i o eivttu jJOJ1UVC LcDl1GJU11,.
 On July 31, 2006, the Carrier notified the Claimant to appear for a formal investigation as a result of having tested positive a second time for cocaine metabolites on July 7, 2006. The Carrier charged the Claimant with violation of Carrier Transportation Operating Rules - Rule G and Carrier Safeway General Safety Rules - Substance Abuse Rule GS-2 and reinstated the Claimant's original Rule G and/or Safety Rule 21 charge dated March 28, 2005, as a result of having violated the terms of his after-care plan. The Claimant was withheld from service pending the results of the formal investigation.
 After several postponements, the hearing took place on November 7, 2006. The Claimant was not present for the hearing. On November 20, 2006, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he had been found to have violated Rule G twice within a five-year period and was being assessed the discipline of termination of

 en lnlnvmellt with thf- Cnrriar inrintl;ntr fl,- ra,v,n<rol n~h;n .. o F .<,- ..11 .. ..:,._.
    y I- ____ ____ ____ ~, _ ,., b ,, ~. ~vruv v u.i <,i iu~ iia,ii~. aiViia all 3ei1iotiLy


rosters.

      TL , _ _ t _

uc paiiieS ociug unable to resolve their dispute, this matter comes before this Board.
 This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case, and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the

                          2

T41IM juaulaazBu uu apt,ul jut,TUlujD aqZ -uoijBjolA TJ ajn-j puooas 7e si sTqZ

    ~snOTOTadeo

    zo `Xluzjlqzu `ajquoseazan uaaq ast,q of suollot, sjl pug am ssajun auTldTosrp


    _$O uoUTSoduTT S,.TOT.Ln,') t, apTSE laS IOU TTTA T).TLOQ 9111 T 'naenrTTTTT nTTTT(TTnem


    3o adlj atp of uolluauu sno uznl jxau am `fulpug ~jjjnS aip uoddns o1 pzooaz


            ~:T; », .. err..:,; ;» ,,;.fc,o -, ..o~j; i"l; F~II~aWp ~uij paeug Siyo-juU


                              *uOljot, Xzuuljdioslp olijastulzj paloafqns put,


        J arCCg pajejolA juBUUlBtD oLjj Tuqj punod Xjzado.Td.zaljreD aiql 1uijl spuT3 paeog smz


          'SOOZ `9Z zaqojop uo zaluuD aljj IPIM paints aq 113LP jaB4u0a juawlt,aal asnqy


            aouujsqns aqj SU jjam SE `Sajnz S,.TQIZTUJ 01441 paTLJOTA jsaj aAljlsod juqj uiajsis STq Ul SajjjOqt,jalU auSE00a .TO3 aAljlsod pajsaj oq `uoijt,uluxexa xzom-ol-uzn4az


          u ~jooj juuuziuj3 aijj uaqm `9002 `L ,~Tnf inoqt, zo uo jucjj SIBOAaz p.TOaaJ aqj,


        -saujll jju ju saouujsqns Oul.Talje-pultu put, joqoojujo suuo3

        3o asn jje uTo.T3 ult,lsqu of paa.Tf aq `ut,ld juauijt,aaj asnqt, aout,jsqns sjueuTTB1J otp


do and sy -af.TUqo j Z ajng i~pjus/[) aln-a atp uo 2ulxeaq a ul ljnsa.x pjnom aolAlas

of uznja.T Slq 3o sreaii 0A3 ujTjjlAi uejd ono-zalye sTq IfjlA1 aouuljduuoo-uou palzodaz


          aznjnd Xue jt,Tll put, tuez2ozd uoljt,llllgilaz paAozddu ut, ui aludiolpud put, TTOZUa


        pjnom aq juTj1 paaa2u juBUTlujD aqj `amll jRP IV 'uoljt,fUsaAUT LIU Jo 2uIPIOT4 aIPJo


        naTT UT (Sst,d~Q out) uoudO 7-"1'Ilnin-sT nTT1 nTTTT TnTTT7 m lY~MnTTV TTnnn nnTT _TT <_-,

          .. . I < <.i 1 v v -L--u _ _LT _.,_ _ , .,y r--IL. -oo'I eot o'i

          eu.;

          juP 4t, `Put, SOOZ 3o qazeN UI uol1t,j01A D alng a jO KjjjTd? punoj uaaq XlsnoTAa.zd

          p~ij;ucuiiej~ aii; j~i.~; S~atiai p.iv~a.T ~T.( j, -TJ a[Ilalat.T.TuDJO UOTjt,IOTA UT auTBOJOJ

          jo aouanUul aTjj zapun 2uTaq ajlqm Xjnp .Ioj 2ujpodazjo,ijjjTT? st,m jut,uTTujJ


°) ®1 Piol 7
                                                      q


the Carrier after his first Rule G violation that he would abstain from the use of all forms of alcohol and all mind-altering ~uhctanrFC The-. Claimant fniladl to live __ to his agreement and, once again, violated the Carrier's rules. This Board cannot

 F_,.t th~* ti,o !`.,.,..:o,. a_t-a . -Li_. ..1__...__..:,,
 ...~... u.wu~ ~cuii~i a~Lcu tlilieasVrlaUly, alUllLlA.llly, or capriciously when 1L decided to terminate the Claimant's employment after the second Rule G violation. Therefore, the claim will be denied. AWARD:

      The claim is denied.


Dated:

 Neutral Member