BEFORE
SPECIAL BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924
Case No. 155 AGU0.r8
Isq
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
TO
DISPUTE: Chicago & North Western Transportation Co.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood:
1. The dismissal of E. A. Washington for alleged violation
of Rule G was without just and sufficient cause and on the
basis of an unproven charge (Organization File 9KB-4412 D;
Carrier File 81-88-167).
2. Trackman E. A. Washington shall be reinstated with
seniority and all other rights unimpaired, compensated for
all wage loss suffered and made whole for any losses due to
the Carrier's unjust dismissal.
FINDINGS:
Claimant E. A. Washington was employed by the Carrier as a
carpenter.
On August 25, 1988, the Carrier notified the Claimant to appear
for a formal
investigation in
connection with the following 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 Carpenter on the Rightof-Way Fence Crew on August 18, 1988.
The hearing was conducted on August 31, 1988; and on September 19,
1988, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he had been found guilty
of the charge and was assessed discipline of dismissal. Thereafter,
the Organization filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging his
disimssal.
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 a Rule G violation because
he had illegal substances in his blood stream while he was on the job
on August 18, 1988.
qaU-(39
Although the Organization contends that there was no probable
cause to test the Claimant, the record reveals that the Claimant was
assisting a boom truck operator when the boom truck derailed, causing
significant damage. Under the Carrier's policy, any individual
involved in an incident that causes significant damage while he or she
is on the job must subject himself or herself to a drug and alcohol
test.
Although the Claimant's breathalyzer examination was negative,
the urine test results were positive for marijuana and cocaine
metabolites. On the basis of the positive urinalysis, the Carrier
terminated the Claimant's employment.
This Board has reviewed the record relating to the test results,
and we find that there is sufficient evidence of the Claimant being
guilty of Rule G contained in the record.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
in the record to support the guilty finding, 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 its action
to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
In the case at hand, as in other cases before this Board, this
Board cannot quarrel with a Carrier's decision to terminate a Claimant
when he has been clearly found guilty of violating Rule G. It is a
significant danger to have employees on the job who are under the
influence of cocaine or marijuana. This Carrier certainly has a
right, for its own safety and the safety of its other employees, to
terminate Claimants who are found guilty of that rule violation.
This Board sees no reason to set aside the action taken by the
Carrier. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
2
AWARD:
Claim denied.
PETER R. M YERS
Neutral M be
rrier Mem er anization Mem
Dated:-
LJ
3