PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes =
 to - -and-
 DISPUTE: Consolidated Rail.CorDoratibn --

 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) davs. In those cases where the evaluation indicates an addiction problem and the employee entersan approved treatment program, he may returned to service upon appropriate recommendation and he must - provide a negative test withinq 125 days of the date of the initial positive test.
 The Claimant was subject to random drug testing for a three year period because of past problems he had had with prohibited drugs. The triggering event leading to this claim occurred on August 18, 1987, when the Claimant's urine specimen tested positive for cocaine. Subsequent to an investigation, he was dismissed from the service.
 PLB No. 3514 C-323/A-323 -
 Pave 2
Organization. It has forcefully and with skill advanced its many con
 cerns with respect to the application of the Carrier's Drua Policv.
 In this respect, it has raised questions about and objections to the
 Carrier's testing procedures as well as the Carrier's failure ta_ produce
 medical personnel at the hearia-held-=on-this matter. who could steak
 authoritativelv about the val=dity- of the urine test and be cross- -
 examined so that relevant infor-aton could be elicited. -
 The Board has carefull-; cons-idered these contentions. we under- -stand the points raised by the -rwanizatioa and do recognize that the,·are not without merit in certain. situations. However, the record hereshows that the Carrier emoloved a highly reputable testing facility, which used the latest technicues.and procedures to assure the accurac·=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 t_:e hearing for cross-- _ examination does not fatally flaw the fairness-o.f 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 progra ,
 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 another opportunity to retain his employment.
 The consequences of his failure to comply with the Carrier's direction.
 were of his choice. - -



P /,T. . Domzal~ki Ecke~^ .uessiJ. P. Cassese
 C(~yrier 'er Neutral Membe Employee Member=

 Dated: 6-~"-po -