SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924
Award No.
2a
Docket No. 139
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 Foreman J.A. Sorensen for alleged
violation of Rule G and Rule G (Addition) was without just and
sufficient cause, on the basis of an unproven charge and
capricious (Organization File 9KB-4351 D; Carrier File 81-8821).
(2) Assistant Foreman J.A. Sorensen shall now be allowed the remedy
prescribed in Rule 19(d)."
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 September 23, 1987, while employed as assistant foreman of an
interdivisional tie gang in Palatine,-~fllinois, Claimant was asked to
submit to drug and alcohol testing as a result of his involvement in an
incident that occurred on that day. Claimant complied, and the test
showed a positive result for marijuana. Claimant subsequently was
directed to attend a formal investigation of the charge:
Your responsibility for violation of Rule G and Rule G (Addition)
as contained in Part 1 of the General Regulations and Safety Rules
(Revisions and Additions) effective January 1, 1985, while you were
employed as Assistant Foreman on the Interdivisional Tie Gang at
Palatine, Illinois on September 23, 1987.
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.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case,
1
SSA- 9~I-,~.~ , ~g~
.
and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support
the finding that the Claimant was guilty of a Rule G violation on the
date in question.
The record reveals that the Claimant admitted that he had used
marijuana prior to the date in question while he was subject to duty.
(Page 22 of the transcript.) Moreover, the record also contains
evidence that the urinalysis taken of the Claimant's urine revealed
the presence of marijuana. Finally, there was a collision between a
suburban passenger train and maintenance of way equipment which is the
type of incident giving the Carrier sufficient reason to test the
employees involved. Claimant was one of the employees who was
arguably responsible for the incident.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
in the record to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of
the Rule G violation, we next turn our attention to the type of
discipline imposed. This Board will not set aside a Carrier's
imposition of discipline unless we find it to have been unreasonable,
arbitrary, or capricious. There have been hundreds of cases which
have found that discharge is a proper response to a Rule G violation.
This Board cannot find that the action taken by the Carrier was
improper. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
Award:
Claim denied. /
Neutral M2er
Carrier M ber Organization Member
Date:
2