a



                  Special Board of Adjustment No. 956-·


      PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

      TO

      DISPUTE: and

      New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc.

      STATEMENT The dismissal of Trackman 0. White was without just

      OF

      CLAIM: and sufficient cause. He shall be reinstated without

      loss of compensation, seniority or vacation rights

      and all benefits enjoyed by him prior to dismissal.

      FINDINGS: Claimant, a trackman with three years service, was

      dismissed for being under the influence of alcohol

      and drugs in violation of Rule G. He was accorded

      a hearing prior to the assessment of discipline that

      complied with the awards and practices in this in

      dustry. Claimant was well repre¢ented throughout the

      proceedings and afforded a fair opportunity to present

      his case and to cross examine. No prejudicial pro

      cedural defect is disclosed by the record.

      The record shows that claimant slipped on a loose

      grate and tripped over the door sill while entering the Track Head

      quarters on July 18, 1986. As a result, he fell to the ground and

      injured his right hand and wrist.

      Claimant was driven by Trackman McMahon to Supervisor

      Ingersoll's office where he was questioned by Mr. Ingersoll. Testimony

                          -2- ~S(o~ 2-3


,ay Supervisor Ingersoll that claimant appeared to be disoriented
 and his speech slurred is not sufficiently detailed and clear in
 and of itself to provide a valid reason for a finding that claimant
 was under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
 It was not unreasonable or improper, however, for
 Mr. Ingersoll to request claimant to take a blood urine screen
 test on the basis of his observations. Claimant complied with that
 request and the tests were given to him by Dr. D'Agostino during
 the morning of July 18, 1986, after his hand had been x-rayed and
 treated at the doctor's office. The results of the tests showed
 that on July 18, 1986 claimant was under the influence of cocaine,
 opiates and THC.
 At the hearing, claimant was asked whether he was
 under the influence of any controlled substances on the morning of
 July 18, 1986. His reply is as follows:

              "Yes, I was under the influence of controlled substances, but no one asked me what I was coming in for. I was coming in to tell Sam that I was unable to work and I wasn't

              going to work that day. No one ..

bothered to ask me that period yet,
 and I think it is unfair in this
 hearing for no one to ask me that...
 I came to work with the intention.to
 tell Mr. Watson that I am not able
 to work and yes I was under the in
 fluence and I knew I wasn't able to
 work."
 This record, particularly claimant's admission that
 he was on Company property during his assigned work hours under the
 influence of chemical substances, supports Carrier's findings in
 this matter. There is no indication that claimant was under the
 protection of any Company rehabilitation program at the time.

                            3 R~ _a3


. Claimant's testimony that he was merely coming in that morning to request time off is not significant in this setting; at any rate, he did not offer that explanation to any supervisor on the day in question.
 The use of drugs by railroad employes is a matter of tremendous concern and no ground is perceived for substituting our judgment for that of Carrier in this case.

 AWARD: Claim denied.

              Adopted at ewark, N.J. qtAl /0 1987.


                                a


                    Hero d M. Weston, Chairman


C--I-Icarrier Member Employee Member