PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western
 Lines)
 STATEMENT That the Carrier's decision to terminate __
 OF CLAIM Claimant Samuel Williams' services with the
 Carrier was excessive, unduly harsh and in
 abuse of discretion, and in violation of the
 terms and provisions of the current Collective
 Bargaining Agreement.
 That because oftheCarrier's failure to prove
 and support the charges by introduction of
 substantial bona fide evidence, that Carrier
 now be required to reinstate and compensate
 Claimant for any and all loss of earnings
 suffered, and that the charges be removed from
 his record.





                                          RNTO


he has been counseled on several occasions for rule violations and was suspended three times for violating Rule 810. In May, 1986, the Claimant was dismissed from service with the Company. On or near December 4, 1987, he was reinstated to service with all seniority rights unimpaired and given nine months backpay and required to pass the Carrier's physical examination. The Claimant was notified of the PLB decision and the required physical examination through a letter dated December 14, 1987. By letter dated January 7, 1988, the Claimant was told to report for the required physical examination on January 20, 1988. The physical included a urinalysis, drug/alcohol screen. The urine sample tested positive for cocaine at a level of 241 NG/ML. Because of the presence of this illegal drug, the Claimant was sent a charge letter on January 25, 1988 advising him to be prdsent for a formal investigation to develop the facts and determine his responsibility, if any, in violating Rule G of the Rules, Maintenance of Way and Structures, Southern Pacific Transportation Company. Those portions which read:

 Rule G: The illegal use . . . .while on or off duty of a drug, narcotic, or other substance which affects alertness, coordination, reaction, response or safety is prohibited. On March 29, 1988, the Carrier notified the Claimant that they believed the evidence from the investigation established his guilt in violating Rule G. He was dismissed from the service of the Company. The Carrier has established sufficient evidence against the _, Employe to verify he violated Rule G. In view of the

                            2

                                            9'47- qo


seriousness of the claimant's rule violation and his complete record, discharge is an appropriate penalty.
 The Union's contention that the Claimant was not an employe at the time of the physical examination and therefore not accountable for the Company rules is without merit. First, even if the employe were a new hire, the detection of an illegal drug in his system would be adequate reason for his application to be rejected. Certainly, employes returning from a leave or ordered reinstated by a Board decision are even more subject to the rules. They were aware of the requirements before their service was interrupted. Besides, according to the Lieberman decision, the Claimant was required to take the Carrier's physical examination. It only makes sense that his reinstatment was conditioned upon his passing the physical, which he did not. There was no stipulation and no obvious intent for the Claimant to have the right to select the time and place for the physical. It was to be arranged by the Carrier, as in any other instance.
 The Claimant had a responsibility to report to the Carrier free of alcohol or illegal substance from his system. He failed to do so. He squandered the opportunity.

                          AWARD


The claim is denied.

 3

                                            q14T to


                            C or. Za perini

                            Nutral


Submitted:

 December 26, 1989 - -
 Denver, Colorado

 4