File No. 860050


Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 to and
 Dispute Union Pacific Railroad Company
 (Former Missouri Pacific Railroad Company)

 Statement
 of Claim: (1) Carrier violated the Agreement, especially Rule 12,
 when Trackman C. T. Martin was dismissed from the
 service on June 13, 1986.

        (2) Claimant Martin should now, therefore, be allowed compensation for time lost from June 13, 1986 until reinstated with all past privileges, vacation and seniority rights unimpaired.


Findings: The Board has jurisdiction by reason of the parties
 Agreement establishing this Board.
 Claimant Trackman was working with Gang 5122 on June
 12, 1986 as a Trackman-Driver in the vicinity of Washington,
 Missouri. Gang members were instructed about 2:30 PM on
 June 12 to stop working, eat in or rest, as they wanted, but
 to return to the work site no later than 7:00 PM in order to
 begin rebuilding the north track. Claimant advised that he
 would get something to eat but would prefer to stay on
 continuous time and not have a break in his service. He had
 been working with a Burrow Crane Operator and both left
 shortly thereafter to get something to eat. The Burrow
 Crane Operator returned, about 3:15 PM, but Claimant failed
 to return.
 A Foreman working in Claimant Martin's area observed
 Claimant about 7:15 PM. He believed that the Claimant was
 handling a crow bar in a careless manner and asked the
 Roadmaster to observe his behavior. The Roadmaster
 concluded that he was behaving in a manner dangerous to
 himself and others at the job site. He approached Claimant,
 smelled alcohol on his breath and observing that he was in
 an unstable condition advised him to accompany him to
 discuss the matter with Assistant Trainmaster Hullihan. All
 three supervisorsconcluded that Claimant was swaying,
 staggering, that Claimant's speech was slurred and that
 Claimant had an odor of alcohol on his breath. Claimant
 advised both officers that he had 6 or 7 beers, and that he
 was still able to perform his job. The Roadmaster removed
 Claimant from service and advised him to contact the
 Employee Assistance Program.
 Award No. 338

 A notice of formal investigation was sent to Claimant on June 13 to appear at an investigation to be held on June 17, 1986 on the charge of Rule G. Carrier concluded therefrom that Claimant was guilty of the charges preferred against him. He was dismissed from service as discipline therefor.

 There are no procedural violations reflected in the record.

 There was sufficient evidence adduced to support Carrier's conclusion as to Claimant's violation of Rule G and Item 5, Conditions of Employment concerning Rule G. Claimant's admission standing alone would be a sufficient basis for supporting a violation of Rule G. It has been long held in this industry that employees, including supervisors, are good judges as to the physical condition of their fellow employee. The Claimant exhibited the classic symptoms of a person under the influence of alcohol.

 Claimant has refused to participate in the Employee Assistant Program. There is no cause in this record to cause the Board to interfere with Carrier's appropriate discipline. This claim will be denied.

 Award: Claim denied.

0 _

ammons, r., ee Men er

 Issued July 13, 1989.

 I LINYVYI~

 J. J an ,Carrier Member

Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman

and Neutral Member