SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924
Award No. III
Docket No. 118
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 Assistant Track Foreman R.S. Cisney for alleged
violation of Rule G was without just and sufficient cause and on
the basis of unproven charges. [Organization File 6LF-2097;
Carrier File 81-86-11-D1
(2) Claimant 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.
At about 7:00 a.m. on August 27, 1985, Claimant's foreman
allegedly detected the odor of alcohol on Claimant's breath. Claimant
then successfully completed a field sobriety test; he also submitted
to blood alcohol and urine tests, which showed
a
blood alcohol content
of .17. Upon Claimant's permission, claimant's supervisors searched
his car and found empty beer cans. Claimant subsequently was directed
to attend a formal investigation of the charge:
Your responsibility, if any, for violation of Rule G of the General
Regulations and Safety Rules, effective June 1, 1967, while on duty
and on Company property at South Morrill, Nebraska, on Tuesday,
August 27, 1985, while assigned as Assistant Track Foreman
headquartered at South Morrill, Nebraska.
The investigation was held as scheduled, 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
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.
/G~.rrie Member
Date:
~/~/.3/F8'd'
-eoj~-
Otganization Member