SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924
Award No. I/O
Docket No. 117
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The dismissal of A. Nailing for alleged violation of Rule G was
without just and sufficient cause, unwarranted and unproven.
[organization File 9KB-4145; Carrier File 81-86-54]
(2) Claimant A. Nailing shall be reinstated 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 employees and the Carrier involved are respectively
employees and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as
amended and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein.
On November 14, 1985, while assigned as a trackman on a tie gang,
Claimant approached the roadmaster and assistant roadmaster and
informed them that he was feeling ill. The supervisors sent Claimant
to the company bus, then discussed the matter and agreed that Claimant
may have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The two
supervisors went to the bus and asked Claimant to submit to blood
testing and urinalysis; Claimant refused. Claimant subsequently was
directed to attend a formal investigation of the charge:
To determine your responsibility in connection with your violation
of Rule G and Rule G addition of the General Regulations and Safety
Rules on November 14, 1985.
After a postponement, the hearing was held on December 11, 1985, and a
copy of the transcript has been made a part of the record. We find
that the investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
1
92 y-//o
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case,
and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support
the finding that the Claimant was guilty of the Rule G violation.
Once this Board has determined that there was sufficient evidence
to support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the type
of discipline imposed. This Board will not normally set aside a
carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find it to be
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Given the nature of the
offense and the background of the Claimant, we find nothing
unreasonable about the termination of the Claimant. Therefore, the
claim must be denied.
Award:
Claim denied.
kL7
Neutral Member
V
rier Member 1Org nization Memb r
Date:
~/3, /9~8~
2