PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 to -and-
 DISPUTE: Consolidated Rail Corporation -_

 STATEMENT CF CLA=M:


FINDINGS: The central issues in this case are concer^.:_c v:.:_. ~_ -1^~ -
 cations of the Carrier's Drug Testing Policy. On Fe_r1_ar' -, 23&-,-°
 the Carrier's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer sent-3 ie.-..=iz t:: -
 each employee in which he explained the carrier's ccnce--: !='-s.af=_t-:
 and how the use of illegal drugs by employees impaired == c.ratvc.-.e
 and, threatened the safety of the public. A summary of f ~rr.2q Policy
 was attached to each of these letters.
 A key feature of the Drug Policy provides the emplovea ,iith an option for an evaluation by the Carrier's Employee Counsel=-. S=ace. If this evaluation shows that the emplovee does not have ar acc._-~7tdcn problem, the employee must provide a negative drug test wizhia fortyfive (45) davs. In those cases where the-evaluation indicates an pdcic tion problem and the employee enters ananproved treatment prcqra-n, he may be returned to service upon appropriate, recommendation a^.3 he-==sr provide a negative test within 125 days of the date of the initial p-ositive test.

 The Claimant herein failed to comply with the Carrier's Drug Testing Policy when he did not provide a negative drug screen.
 These are difficult cases for all concerned, particular=q for the Organization. It has forcefully and with skill advanced its many concerns with respect to the anplication o£ the Carrier's Drug Policy. In this respect, it has raised questions and objections about the Car rier's testing procedures as well as the Carrier's failure to prr>duce medical personnel at the hearing held on this matter who could speak authoritatively about the validity of the urine test az:d be: crossexamined so that relevant information could be elicitsd.
 PLB No. 3514 C-317/A-317 -
 Page 2

 The Board has carefully considered these contentions. We understand the points raised by the organization and do recognize that the? are not without merit in certain situations. However, the record here shows that the Carrier employed a highly reputable testing facility, which used the latest techniques and procedures to assure the accuracy of its tests. Therefore, it is established that the test result is a - "medical fact" as distinguished from a "medical opinion". Accordingly, the failure to have a medical person present at the hearing for cross-examination does not fatally flaw the fairness of the proceedings.
 Railroad work is dangerous. The safety ofthe Carriers workforce as well as the public, requires positive measures to ensure that the - inherent dangers are minimized. In furtherance of-these efforts, the Carrier initiated a drug testing-program which it announced to each of its employees, as noted earlier. The substance of the Carrier's progra-, as well as ones like it used by other Carriers, has been upheld by numerous arbitral Awards. Given the established facts of this case, we - have no basis to arrive at an Award that runs counter to these many Awards. In the instant case, the Claimant was put on notice and, in effect, he- was provided another opportunity to retain his employment. The consequences of his failure to comply with the Carrier's direction were of his choice.
The claim is denied.
 l ~id~
 F. J.: Domza i Eckeh d Muessi . P. Cassese -
 C '~r ier M r Neutral Member Employee Member

 Dated: ('0" - z/- ~'D