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 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, the Carrier found the Claimant guilty of a charge that he had failed to comply with the Carrier's Drug Testing Policy. The Claimant had a choice of producing a negative drug test or enrolling in the carrier's approved drug rehabilitation program. He chose the former. However, because he failed to produce a negative drug test, he was dismissed from the Carrier's service.
 rL3 ~o. 3514 C-325jA-325
 Page 2
Organization. It has forcefull:, and with skill advanced its man :· con=
 cerns with respect to the application of the Carrier's Drug Policy.
 In this respect, it has raised questions about and objections to the
Carrier's testing procedures as well as the Carrier's failure to ^roduce
 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 under- - - stand 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 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 the hearing for cross=' examination does not fatally -flaw the fairness of the proceedings.
 Railroad work is dangerous. The safety of the Carrier's workforce 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 o_° 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 numerous 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.

                          AWARD


      The claim is denied.

0
 l a~D
 F. .J,: Domza 5 i Eckeha * c-s51g J. P. Cassese -
 Cagier M~n .ear Neutral Member / Employee Member

 Dated; (0/ - Z/-p0