?yRTIES- Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 to - -and
 DISPUTE: Consolidated Rail Cornoration

 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 fortyfive (45? davs. 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 claimant was subject to the conditions of the aforementioned - Drug Policy specifically random drug test because he had failed to keep his system free of prohibited drugs. When the results of a urine test taken on August 4, 1987 showed positive for -cocaine, the claimant was charged and found guilty of a failure to comply with the Carrier's Drug Testing Policy and he was dismissed from the service.
 PLB No. 3514 C-324.A-324
 Page 2

 These are difficult cases fdr all concerned, particularly for t::e-- - Organization. It has forcefuli_- and with-skill-advanced its many concerns with respect to the application of the Carrier's Drug Polio,:. In this respect, it has raised questions about and objections to t'_'_^.e Carrier's testing procedures as well as the Carrier's failure to produce medical personnel at the hearinc held on this matter who could speak = authoritatively about the validity of' the urine test and be crossexamined so that relevant information could be elicited.
 The Board has carefull·: considered these contentions. We understand the points raised by the Crcanization and do recocsnize that taevare 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.
as well as the public, re-quires 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 Claimantwas 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.



F . Dorm s}ci eke - essl J. P. Cassese- _
 C~2,trier mfr Neutral Membe Employee Member -

 Dated: ~ -y-9o