BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
1. The dismissal of Mr. J. Trueblood for his
alleged violation of National Railroad Passenger
Corporation Rule G was arbitrary, capricious, and
without just cause (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-2805D).
2. Claimant Trueblood's record shall be cleared of
the charge leveled against him and he shall be
compensated for all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS:
Claimant James Trueblood was employed by the Carrier as a
truck driver in New Jersey.
On October 19, 1990, the Carrier"notified the Claimant to
appear for a formal investigation in connection with the
following charges:
Alleged violation of National Railroad Passenger
Corporation Rules of Conduct, Rule G . . .
Specifically, in that you were observed by
supervisor Lance Pinkerton and Anthony Danella to
be under the influence of alcohol at approximately
2:30 p.m. and subsequently tested positive at
approximately 2:30 p.m. on October 4th, 1990.
After one postponement, the hearing took place on December
il, 1990. On December 21, 1990, the Carrier notified the
Claimant that he had been found guilty of the charges and was
being assessed discipline of dismissal in all capacities.
Thereafter, the Organization filed a claim on the Claimant's
behalf, challenging his dismissal. The Carrier denied the claim.
C4s~
jay -saw
ggc,
The parties being unable to resolve the issues, this matter
came before this Board.
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.
Claimant admitted drinking the night before, having partied
late, and having gotten very little sleep before he came to work.
Secondly, there is evidence that alcohol was smelled on the
Claimant's breath while he was at work. Finally, the Claimant
was asked to take two breathalizer tests and both of them came
back positive for alcohol.
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.
The record in this case reveals that the Claimant had been
found guilty of a previous Rule G violation in 1987.
Consequently, the Claimant is a two-time offender for Rule G.
This Board has held on occasions in the past that once an
employee is given a second chance and he still is unable to
remain alcohol free, the Carrier has a sufficient basis upon
which to terminate his employment.
This Carrier did not act unreasonably, arbitrarily or
capricious when it terminated the Claimant. Therefore, the claim
2
. ~asc Ntf - 58
A 984a
will be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
PETER R. EYERS`
Neutral M tuber l
Carrier Member" Organization Member
Dated:
'J-3o- 9oz
3