PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO, 6402
PROTI-I1?RHOOT) 01" MAENTENANCE, OF WAY EMPLOYES
Case No. Ilfl
and )
} Award No. 1 16
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY )
Martin 14. Malin, Chairman & Neutral Member
T. 4W. Kreke, Employee Member
13. `eW. Hanquist, Carrier Member
STATEMENT OF-CLAIM:
1. The dismissal from service of Mr. K. \W. Collins for his alleged violation of Union
Pacific Rule 1.5, the Carriers Drug and Alcohol Policy and Federal Regulations (Title 49
Part 382 Section 213) and the Return to Work Waiver Agreement of July 30,2004 was
not justified. (System File MW-07-08/146457.8 MPR).
2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, the Clain,an t siaall
he reinstated to his former position; be paid for all time lost, have his seniority and
benefits reinstated intact, his personal record exonerated of all charges and receive
expenses for attending the hearing.
FINDINGS:
Public Law Board .No. 6402 =upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and
holds that Employee and Carrier ate 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 heating thereon and did participate therein.
On November 14, 2006, Claimant was notified to report for a formal investigation on
December 1 l , 2006, concerning his allegedly testing positive for an illegal substance during a
follow-up drug test on November 3, 2006. The hearing was postponed to Rttntury 9, 2007. The
Organization filed the instant claim protesting the postponement.
Following the hearing on January 9, 2007, Claimant was found guilty of the charge and
dismissed from service. The Organization filed a second claim on Claimant's behalf appealing
PL13 No. 6402
Award 116
his dismissal. The Organization argued that Claimant's dismissal violated the Agreement
because of the improper postponement and because Carrier failed to prove the charges by
substantial evidence. That claim came before this Board in Case No. 120, Award No. 99. In
Award No. 99, we held that the postponement did not violate the Agreement and that Carrier
proved the charges by substantial evidence. We denied the claim.
We have reviewed the record of the on-property handling of the instant claim very
carefully. We find that the instant claim merely duplicates the procedural arguments presented in
the claim before us in Case No. 120, Award No. 99. Thus, we have already ruled on the issues
raised by the instant claim. Accordingly, the instant claim must be dismissed as moot.
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
Martin H. Malin, Chairman
B. W. Hanquist _ T. W. Kreke
Carrier Member Employee Member
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, ?anuary 31, 2009
2