PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Wav_ Emnloves
to -and-
DISPUTE: Consolidated Rail Corporation

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:



FINDINGS: The central issues in this case are concerned with the `
applications of the Carrier's Drug Testing Policy. On February 20,
1987, the Carrier's Chairman and Chief Executive officer sent a letter
to each employee in which he explained the Carrier's concern for safety
and how the use of illegal drugs by employees impaired its operations
and threatened the safety of the public. A summary of its Drug Policy
was attached to each of these letters.
A key feature of the Drug Policy provides the employee with an option for an evaluation by the Carrier's Employee Counseling Service. If this evaluation shows that the employee does not have an addiction problem, the employee must provide a negative drug test within forty-. five (45) days. In those cases where the evaluation indicates an addiction problem and the employee enters an approved treatment program, he may be returned to service upon appropriate recommendation and he must provide a negative test within 125 days of the date of the initial positive test.
The evidence reveals that the Claimant failed to comply with the Carrier's letter of May 25, 1987, which instructed him to rid his system of certain prohibited drugs and to provide a negative urine sample within forty-five (45) days.
These are difficult cases for all concerned, particularly for the Organization. It has forcefully and with skill-advanced its many concerns with respect to the application of the Carrier's Drug Policy. In this respect, it has raised questions and objections about the Carrier's testing procedures as well as the Carrier's failure to produce medical personnel at the hearing held on this matter who could
PLB No. 3514 C-319/A-319 -_
Paae 2

speak authoritatively about the validity of the urine test ;_i re cross examined so that relevant information could be elicited.

The Board has carefully considered these contentions. stand the points raised by the Organization and do recogniz, are not without merit in certain situations. However, the

shows that the Carrier employed a highly reputable testina : .... which used the latest techniaues and procedures to assure of its tests. Therefore, it is established that the test

"medical fact" as distinguished from a "medical opinion". the failure to have a medical person present at the hear-'r-

examination does not fatally flaw the fairness of the pr::~.-~ci~s.
Railroad work is dangerous. The safety of -the Carr:_,~_-'s wnrkforce as well as the public, reauires positive measures to ensure: tY.at -he inherent dangers are minimized. In-furtherance of thesa --~_ffcrs, the Carrier initiated a drug testing program which it-annou=el to each of-its employees, as noted earlier. The substance of the ,:~ar__er''s proar as well as ones like it used by other Carriers, has been uc-nld by numerous arbitral Awards. Given the established facts of this case, we - have no basis to arrive at an Award that runs counter to t'.^.-nse 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 Ca=rier's direction were of his choice.





F.· Ji Domzals Eckehttid Mues~ ~'g 3. . Cassese
Ckr,Zier Me Neutral Mem:er Employee-Member

Dated: W11 -ly- yo