PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of-Way Employes
 to --and
 D=SPUTE: Consolidated Rail Corporation

 STATEMENT-OF CLAIM:

FINDINGS: The central issues _n this case are concer-. := -; _ _: - -
 applications of the Carrier's Drug Testing Policy. Cz _~--_a-_ ?-:,
 1987, the Carrier's Chairman and Chief Executive Off izea sent - letter
 to each employee in which he explained the Carrier's concern fc;r safety
 and how the use of illegal drugs by employees impaired -_-; :.e ra=ions
 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-wit~h an option for an evaluation by the Carrier's Employee Counseli-= Service. I._' this evaluation shows that the employee does not have an addiction problem, the employee must provide a negative drug test wit~An fortyfive (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.
 Subsequent to an investigation-held in absentia, the Claimant was found guilty of a charge that he had failed to comply with the Carrier's Drug Testing Policy. Specifically, he took no action after he had been instructed to either provide a-negative drug test or enter the Carrier's Employee Assistance Program.
 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 Druq Policy.--In this respect, it has raised questions about and objections to. the Carrier's testing procedures as well as the Carrier's faiiv=a to ^roduce medical personnel at the hearing held on this matt=.r VLc r·aald
 PLB No. 3514 C-321jA-321 -
 Page 2

 speak authoritatively about the validity of the urine test and be cross - examined so that relevant information could be elicited.
 The Board has carefully considered these contentions. we understand the points raised by the organization and do recognize that they 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". Accordinglythe failure to have a medical person present at the hearing for-cross---examination does not fatally flaw the fairness of the proceedings.
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 prograr
 as well- as ones like it used by other Carriers, has been upheld by nu
 merous 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 anotheropportunity to retain his employment-.
 The-consequences of his failure to comply with the Carrier's direction
 were of his choice.





F.,IJA Domza1sl i Eckeh Muessig J. P. Cassese
 C~ier MO Neutral Membe Employee Member -

 Dated: ~- y-yo - -_