SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 1048
AWARD N0.127
Parties to Dispute:
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
AND
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Statement of Claim:
Claim on behalf of T. D. Lovelace for reinstatement to service with seniority, vacation
and all other rights unimpaired and pay for time lost as a result of his dismissal from
service following a formal investigation held on July 17, 2002, in connection with his
violation of Rule G in that he tested positive on a Breath Alcohol Test on June 27, 2002.
(Carrier File MW-DEAR-02-30-LM-145)
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are
carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and this board is duly
constituted by agreement under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the patties and subject matter.
This award is based on the facts and circumstances of this particular case and shall not serve as a
precedent in any other case.
AWARD
After thoroughly reviewing and considering the record and the parties' presentations, the Board finds that
the claim should be disposed of as follows:
The record is clear that Claimant violated Rule G. Claimant tested positive on a Breath Alcohol Test and
on a confirmatory test administered eighteen minutes later. Claimant's claim that the alcohol was due to
his having used Listerine shortly before the test is inconsistent with the confirmatory test. Although the
use of Listerine can cause a positive Breath Alcohol Test. the alcohol from the Listerine is not absorbed
into the blood and completely dissipates within fifteen minutes. Thus, even if Claimant had used
Listerine immediately before the first test, the confirmatory test would not have registered a positive
alcohol level. Accordingly, we find that Carrier proved the charge by substantial evidence.
The record reflects that Carrier offered Claimant an opportunity to enter its DARS program and thereby
return to service. Claimant chose not to do so. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the
penalty of dismissal was arbitrary, capricious or excessive.
The claim is denied.
S13& 1048
Awd
ia~
P45 ~ a
Chairman and Neutral Member
D. rtholomay D. L. Kerby
Orga ' ion Member Carrier Member
Issued at Chicago, Illinois on November 26, 2003