PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western
 Lines)
 STATEMENT That the Carrier's decision to dismiss
 OF CLAIM Claimant, B. K. Raynor from its service 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 of the Carrier's failure to prove
 and support the charges by introduction of
 substantial bona fide evidence, that Carrier
 now be recuired to reinstate and compensate
 Claimant for any and allloss of earnings
 suffered, and that the charges be removed from
 his record.
 FINDINGS








                                            by?_93


hearing was held on October 15, 1987, to determine whether or
 not the Claimant had violated Rules A and 607 of the Rules and
 Regulatiions for the government of Maintenance of Way and
 Structures and Engineering Department Employes. The Carrier
 reviewed the transcript of the hearing and determined there was
 sufficient evidence to dismiss the Claimant. On behalf of the
 Employe, the Union appealed the Carrier's decision. By letter
 dated, December 14, 1987, Superintendent, Medley agreed to
 reinstate the Claimant on a leniency basis. _
 As was the Company policy, the Claimant was required to
 submit to a Company-directed medical examination. As part of
 the physical, a urinalysis was completed. The results of the
 urinalysis indicated the Claimant tested positive for the
 presence of cannabinoids at a level of 105 NG/ML. Because of
 the results of the test, the Claimant was issued a charge letter
 and told to report for a hearing on January 13, 1988 (sic) for
 the purpose of determining his responsibility, if any, in
 violating Rule G of the Rules and Regulations for the Government
 of the Maintenance of Way and Structures Employes, those
 sections reading:

      Rule G: The use of alcoholic beverages or intoxicants by employes subject to duty, or their possession, use or being under the influence thereof while on dutv or on Company property, is prohibited.


      Employes shall not report for duty under the influence of, or use while on duty or on Company property any drug, medication or other substance, including those prescribed by a doctor, that will in any way adversely affect their alertness, coordination, reaction, response or safety. Questionable cases involving prescribed medications shall

                                              &7q)-f3


      be referred to a Company Medical officer.

The illegal use, possession or sale on or off duty of a drug, narcotic, or other substance which affects alertness, coordination, reaction, response or safety, is prohibited. During the hearing the Claimant-admitted he was guilty of violating the above rules and requested the Company show leniency. The Carrier subsequently dismissed the Claimant, but upon appeal from the Union agreed- to consider his return to employment upon successful completion of his rehabilitation program (See August 3, 1988 letter from Medley). However, on February 9, 1989, Family Assistance Counselor, Cliff Melton informed the Carrier that the Claimant initially refused to enter the rehabilitation program. When he did decide to become involved in a program his insurance had run out. Mr. Melton found him another program, but the Claimant was removed from that program. As a result of his failure to complete a rehabilitation program, the Carrier refused to reinstate the Claimant. The Claimant is a short term employe and therefore has little vested interest in the Company. During his short tenure he has been guilty of two serious violations. One the failure to report a vehicular accident and the other the use of an illegal substance. Even after the Carrier was willing to give him, what was actually, a third chance, he refused the opportunity. The choice was his. If he had merely successfully completed the rehabilitation program he would have been reemployed. The Claimant made the incorrect decision, but

                            3

                                                  R~f~-53


clearly it was his decision. -
      The policy of the Carrier is well-knowned. When someone

has been off duty for whatever reason for an extended period of
 time, they are to submit to a Company-directed medical
 examination. This is certainly the prerogative of the Carrier
 and has been a long standing practice. When an employe fails
 this ei:amination due to the presence of drugs in his/her system,
 the Carrier has the right to dismiss that individual unless the
 Claimant can prove the tests were tainted or inaccurate. In
 this case, the Claimant admitted guilt. Oncehe refused to
 participate in the rehabilitation program, and then,
 subsequently was removed from another Program, he demonstrated a
 disinterest in protecting his position. The Carrier's actions __
 were appropriate.

                          AWARD


The claim is denied.

                            C of . Z ,4erini Neutral


Submitted:

 December 28, 1989 Denver, Colorado

                            4