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, A. Santa Cruz 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 required to reinstate and compensate
 Claimant for any and all loss of earnings
 suffered, and that the charges be removed from
 his record.--- - -
 FINDINGS




                                            947-9


Assistant Division Engineer at Roseville, California at 9:30 a.m., Friday, February 26, 1988. The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether the Claimant was under the influence of drugs on February 11, 1988. The Claimant was charged with an alleged violation of Rule G of the General Rules and Regulations for the Government of Maintenance of Way and Engineering Department Employees of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, which reads:

      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 duty 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 medication shall be referred to a company Medical Officer.


The illegal use, possession or sale while on or off duty of a drug, narcotic, or other substance which affects alertness, coordination, reaction, or safety is prohibited. Because the Claimant failed to protect a welder on February 10, 1988, the Roadmaster R. C. Chavez, summoned him to a meeting on February 11, 1988. During the conference, the Claimant's responses were slow and his eyes were dilated. Aside from this, the Claimant's work attendance had been irregular in the immediate past. Therefore, the Roadmaster requested the Claimant take a toxicological examination. The results of the examination revealed the presence of derivitives of marijuana

                            2

                                            9 N7-9u


and cocaine. The Claimant was removedfrom service pending a hearing.
 Unfortunately for the Claimant, the test results were sufficient to indicate the Claimant had used-both-marijuana and cocaine at some time prior to the meeting with the Roadmaster. Those tests, coupled with the obervations of the Roadmaster are sufficient to show the Claimant violated Rule G.
 In view of the Claimant's record, this Board finds no mitigating factors to offset the penalty issued by the Carrier. They were within their right to remove the Claimant pending an investigation since the test results were positive. Admittedly, the Carrier had dismissed the Claimant on.another charge prior to the issuance of the discharge letter inthis case, which could raise some procedural issues. However, the events which precipitated the two cases were at least indirectly related and occurred almost simultaneously. The hearing in this matter had been scheduled prior to the Claimant's February 25, 1988 discharge and involved an incident which happened while the Claimant was still employed.
 The Claimant was afforded a full and fair hearing. He was guilty of violating the cited rule.

                          AWARD


The claim is denied.

                            3

                                          qy7-949


                                    )~2=


                            Carol J. Zamperini Neutral


Submitted:

 January 24, 1990
 Denver, Colorado

 4