PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 6461

Case No. 8 Award No. 8

To - and -

Appeal of the discipline of dismissal imposed on Mark Reforno, effective March 4, 2002.

FINDINGS: On January 25, 2002. claimant was given a nonce charging him w h the following offense:

"Violation of Rule G.

The above charge is in connection with an investigation held on January 7, 2002 wherein you stated you smoked marijuana on October 31, 2001 at a local bar in Hamtramck, Nfchigan."

Subsequently he entered and successfully completed a rehabilitation program and was conditionally reinstated to service on a leniency basis effective May 5, 1999 As a result of an incident that occurred on October 31, 2001. claimant was charged with operating a track machine in an unsafe manner and was required to attend a hearing held on January 7, 2002 Due to the 1013112001 incident, claimant was reqi,:.ed to take a drug and alcohol test for which he tested positive for use of marijuana. The record shows the Carrier did not charge him with regard to the positive test. However, at his January 7, 2002 heating, the claimant freely admitted that he used marijuana on October 31, 2001, and based on said admission, the claimant was subsequently charged as set forth hereinabove.

The Carrier asserts that claimant was fully aware of the fact that he was given a second chance to be a reliable employee and knew that under the Carrier's Drug and Alcohol pohc,- that

PLB No. 6461 C-8/A-8 Page 2

lie was to remain free from prohibitive drug use. They point to the undisputed fact that claimant freely admitted at the January 7, 2002 hearing, that he used marijuana and was therefore to violation of Rule G. Consequently, based on the undisputed testimony and evidence presented, and in light of his previous discharge/leniency reinstatement, the discipline of dismissal should not be disturbed.

The Organizarion asserts the claimant was subje-ted to "double jeopardy" in this case, which denied him due process. They state that the Rule G charge was made nearly threc months after the Carrier's knowledge of the claimant's positive drug test, which they contend is a time limit violation of Rule 25, Section I (d). Based on the foregoing, they aver that his record should be cleared and that he should be compensated for all lost wages.

We have thoroughly reviewed the procedural arguments advanced by the Organization and we disagree with them. The charge hereinbefore us were timely trade based on the testimony adduced at the January 7, 2002 hearing. Further, from our review of the record, we found no improprieties and deem the claimant was afforded a fair and impartial hearing.

"The use o7 possession of intc::icams. over-the-counter or prescnption drugs, narcotics, controlled substances, or medication that may adversely affect safe performance is prohibited while on duty or on company property. Employees must not possess, sell. use, or have in their bodily fluids any illegal drug or controlled substance while on or off duty "

The record in this case is abundantly clear that claimant violated the above quoted rule. He was previously given one "last chance" to become a reliable and drug free employee and knew at the outset what was expected from him to continue his employment. His choice to continue to