SPECIAL R:OARDOF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924'
Award No. 10
Docket--No. 10
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO. t:
DISPUTE:. Chicago and North Western-,Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:. Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that;:
(1) The dismissal of Trackman Robert J. Shaw for allegedv=iolation of Rule G was without-just and sufficient'
cause and excessive. (Organization File 2D-34.85:
Carrier File 81-83-36-D.
(2)_ Claimant~Robert J. Shaw shall be reinstated to service
with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and compensated for all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS:
This Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds
and holds that the employes and the Carrier involved, are respectively
employes and Carrier wtthin-the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as
amended; and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein.
Prior to his dismissal, claimant was employed as a trackman
at Carrier's Bell Avenue Yards in Des Moines, Iowa. On October 29,
1982, a search of claimant and of his automobile parked on company
property by members of Carrier's Police Department, which search was
made with claimant's consent, divulged a marijuana cigarette
in
the
breast pocket of claimant's shirt, a marijuana cigarette in the ashtray
of- his automobile, along-with twenty-one marijuana cigarette butts,
referred to as "roaches." Afield test of the cigarettes showed conclusively that they contained marijuana. The claimant was charged on
October-29, 1982, with:.
"Your responsibility in-connection with violation of
Rule G of the General Regulations and Safety Rules;
effective June 1, 1967, and Rule G'Additions System
Timetable No. 5, while employed as a trackman at Hell
Avenue Yard, Des Moines, on October 29, 1982, at
approximately 12:05 P.M."
The investigation was originally scheduled for 9:00 A.M.,
November°5, 1982, but was postponed and conducted on November 12,
1982. A copy of the transcript of the investigation has been made
a part of the record. The investigation was conducted in a fair and
impartial manner:
Rule G of General Regulations and Safety Rules; and.
Rule G Addition, System Time T-able No. 5, referred to in the letter
5,~aY
Award No. 10
Docket-No. 10
Page 2.
of charge, read:
R=
"The use of alcoholic beverages or narcotics by
employee subject to duty is prohibited. Being under
the influence of alcoholic beverages or narcotics while
on duty or on Company property is prohibited. The use
or possession of aloaholia-beveragesor narcotics while
on duty or on G'ompany property is prohibited."
HIJLE_ G:. (ADDITION)::
"Except as otherwise provided below, employes are
prohibited from reporting for duty or being on duty oron company property while under the influence of, or
having in their possession while on duty or on company
property, (1) any drug-the possession of which is prohibited'
by law; (2)' any drug-belonging to the generic. categories
of narcotics, depressants, stimulants; tranquilizers,
hallucinogens, or anti-depressants;
(3)
any drug assigned
a registration number by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
and Dangerous drugs not included in-.oategory (2); or (4)
any liquid containing alcohol.
It is permissible for an empldye to take and use a
drug or medication coming-within categories (1), (2),
(3)
and (4) above as medication for treatment of chronic
health problems or temporary illness providedithat when
medication is prescribed by a licensed'medical doctor
the employe obtains from the doctor a
_writteft
statement
(which upon request; will 'tie submitted by the employe to
his supervisor) certifying that in the doctor's opinion
the medication prescribed does not adversely affect the
employe's ability to safely perform his duties with the
ebmpany."
In the investigation, there was substantial evidence in support
of the charge. In addition to the marijuana cigarette found in
claimant's shirt pocket, he was in complete control of his automobile
parked on-company property. It can properly be held, therefore, that
he was im-possession of mar^1juana in the automobile on company
property.
Claimant was clearly in violation of the rules. The fact
that he may have been relieved'from-duty shortly before the search
of his person and the automobile was made, has no effect on his
violation of the rules. He was on company property while in
possession of marijuana. It has been held many times that the use
" S6 A 9-) y
Award No. 10
Docket No. 10
Page
3
of'drugw or possession of drugs is considered' a serious offense
in the railroad industry, usually resulting in dismissal.
A W A E D'
Claim denied.
Chairman, Neutral Mem er-
arrier Me=ter- Labor Memb'
xr,
DATE:-
74e 19 9-3