The Board, upon the whole record and on the evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board is duly constituted by agreement of the parties; that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing.
Claimant was dismissed from the Carrier's service after a drug test administered in connection with a fitness for duty physical examination returned positive results for cocaine usage. At the time of the Carrier's disciplinary action, claimant had approximately 18 months of service. Our review of the record does not reveal any procedural irregularities of significance. On the merits, proper compliance with the applicable urine sample collection and testing protocols was established by substantial evidence in the record. Claimant also acknowledged his usage of cocaine in the days before the test was administered.
The investigation also developed information about Carrier's voluntary referral policy. The policy permits employees to refer themselves to the EAP counselor without discipline under certain
Public Law Board No. 6920 Award No. 3cncumstanees. On this record, however, there is substantial evidence to establish that claimant was not eligible for handling under the policy.
Although the record shows that claimant successfully completed rehabilitation after his dismissal and likely remains free of substance abuse, our rote does not permit us to overturn discipline for leniency reasons. See, for examples, Award No. 6 of Public Law Board 6326 and Second Division Award No. 13761. The granting of leniency is the prerogative of the Carrier unless provided otherwise in the applicable Agreement. No such Agreement provision has been cited to us. Given these facts, our role is limited to reviewing the record to ascertain whether it contains substantial evidence in support of the Carrier's action. If it does, we have no choice but to uphold the Carrier's disciplinary decision.