___.- _-r~_._ - _ =_ - .. -~- _~:_. ~_ - _

AWARD NO. 11 CASE NO. I1

SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 1420

PARTIES ) AMTRAK SERVICE WORKERS COUNCIL

TO )

DISPUTE ) NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

STATEMENT OF _ .AIM

i. Carrier, acting arbitrarily and unjustly, violated Rule 19 and other
related rules of the Agreement when, on March 22, 1987 it removed
from service Claimant Richard Gamea and, when on May 26,1988
it dismissed Claimant from service.
2. Cosier shall now be required to reinstate Claimant to service with
seniority rights unimpaired and to compensate him an amount equal
^ to what he could have earned, including but not limited to daily
wages, overtime and holiday pay, had he not been held from service
and dismissed. Cagier shall also be required to treat Claimant's
record of any reference to this matter.
3. Carrier shall also be aired to reimbuxsc Claimant for any amounts
paid by him for medic, surgical or dental expenses for himself and
his dependents to the extent that such payments would be payable
. under the current insurance carriers covering similar employees in
the craft. Carrier shall also reimburse Claimant for all premium
payments he may have had to make in the purchase of substitute
health, dental gad life insurance until his regular coverage is restored
by Corner.

OPMON OF BOARD

As a result of charges dated March 25, 1987,. roves '~riqn eventually held on May

17, 1988 and by letter dated May 26, 1988, Claimant i Chef, was dismissc~., ~.o_m. 6ervlce-

for violating the texmx of aZ& G Waiver,

On January 12,1987 Claimant signed a Rule G Waiver admitting that on December.

31, 1986 he reported for duty under the influence of an intojdcaat. 1n pertinent part, the

'PVaiverptovided:

Additionally, I further understand that after successfully completing the initial treatment plan recommended by the EAP Counselor, I wilt be dismissed from service unless I comply with the following stipulations:

* * .r

3. Pass a complete medical examination upon

completion of the initial treatment program.

SBA 1020, Award No. l I P, Garnett Page 2

4. For cases involving the use of drugs or alcohol, submit to and pass a test by urine or breath sample respectfully, each calendar quarter for a period of two years.

On March 22, 1987 Claimant was instructed to submit m a drug test Claimant tested positive for the presence of cocaine and bCnzodiazepiac sad the instant charges followed.

Substantial evidence supports the Carrier's action in this matter. The Rule Gr'

Waiver is clear - failure to pass a drug test "will" result in dismissal. Claimant failed to
pass the test in March 1987 and, under the terms of the agreement signed by Claimant, -
dismissal was warranted.
The record. does not establish that Claimant was required to take more their one quarterly drug test as argued by the Organization. The February 19,1987 exam relied upon by the Organization was sot the quarterly test under paragraph 4 of the Waiver but, as shown by the testimony of Nurse C. Cazel, that test was part of the reran to duty . examination ref'prenced.in paragraph 3 of the Waiver.

~Jcx d~s._f'7aim~t~_ tt arts, a,Fsp~tioa that hc_s~1~fjWGI~'t r~far hif arin~

specimen_ch8~gs r't~ result For all purposes, Claimant's testimony to that effect was not
credited. Considering the objective evidence in the record showing flat Claimant failed the
teat, we find no sufficient basis to overrun that credibility determination, SHA 951,
Awed No: 38 relied upon by the Organization is not applicable since in that tax these was
no objective evidence to waagnt discrediting a witness and fix witness' testimony was
deemed >mcoutridicted. Here, that objective evidence exists through the results of the test ,
Further. we t

~4cQpier ~4cQpier that even assuming th2t G'Ittintarnt did submit tav wow

p~

- he all -.. _~ a0d OtjLSejf. - ~ the canmct of this case is tatrtarnottat to failing me '

_ . . -a ~,~ _

,: - ~_~ _. . - N

~lntg~t sgd wamtn~ OmiRSat.

Y. the allegations that the test documents contain sufficient amts to require

setting aside the discipline is not supparoed. At most, the areas alluded to by the

SBA 1020, Award No. 11 R Gamett Page 3

Organization are typographical date errors cad do not warrant setting aside the Carrier's action. %
Further, the Organinaon s assertion that the drug test was not confirmed is likewise not substantiated by the record. The test results in the record estibiiah W a sufficient degree that a confirmation test was performed on the initial EMIT screen.

Finally, we have considered the procedural arguments made by the Organization

cad also find those assertions insufficient to change the result, In light of the clear
lanVgge o_f thcRute G Waiver with its man_d_a_that_Clai mant not fail a drug test and the
evidence shnwi:u~ that qj" dAaotsomnlv witu tuAse teems. the issues raised
conea ~ the conduct gf the hrA^nP am, I am,I The Org2nizatim's
reliance upon SBA 951, Award No. 31 is cot persuasive. There, the failure to call a
witness to testify about relevant and material evidence was deemed prejudicial where the
record testimony was in contradiction. Here, in light of ¢aimanV4 failure to nass the dW.
test kreauirrd by the Ravies and the strict terms of the Rule G waiver calling
his d_iamissalxwkAAbu. the testimony of the witnesses cot called cannot lx
considered relevant and material to the main issue before us, and hence, the failure to
addux their testimony was non-ptejudiaaL
AWARD

Claim deaisd.

tea...,:. N - °~.a .M,~..

wm can

Neutral Member

be
Organisation Merfiber

Chic o, Illinois
rely ~ 1989