PARTIES - Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes - -
 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 fort_yfive (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 shows that the Claimant had tested positive for cannabis. Pursuant to the carrier's Drug Policy, he was instructed to rid his system of prohibited drugs and to provide a negative urine sample within forty-five (45) days. Later, after he had tested negative he was returned to the service subject to drug testing for three years. Because the result of a test taken by the Claimant on July 2, 1987 was positive for cannabinoid, he was dismissed from the Carrier's service.
 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 about and objections to-the
 PLB No. 3514 Page 2

 C-322/A-322

 Carrier's testing procedures as well as the Carrier's failure to produce medical personnel at the hearing held on this matter who could speak authoritatively about the validity of the urine test and be cross examined so that relevant information could be elicited.
 The Board has carefullv 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 her e 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 of the Carrier's workforceas 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 program..

 as well as ones like it

 merous arbitral Awards. have no basis to arrive Awards. In the instant effect, he was provided

 used by other Carriers, has been upheld by nu-

 Given the established facts of this case, we at an Award that runs counter to these many case, the Claimant was put on notice and, in another opportunity to retain his employment.

 The consequences of his failure to comply with the Carrier's direction were of his choice.

 AWARD
The claim is denied.

 .`J. Dorm ki
 C~r~ier er

 Dated: 49 - L/-9 o

 ce Muessic
 Neutral embe

J. P. Cassese

Employee Member