PARTIES- Brotherhood of Maintenance of WayEmoloyes
 to -and-
 DISPUTE:- - -

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

FINDINGS: The central issues in this case are concerned with the applications of the Carrier's Drug Testing Policy.- On Februarv 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 :rust provide a negative drug test within forty-five (45) days. In those cases where the evaluation indicates an addic
 tion 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 Carrier's random drug testing procedure because one of his urine specimens tested positive for cannabis. When another urine sample provided by the Claimant on August 17, 1987 tested positive for cannabinoid, the Carrier servered the employment relationship subsequent to an investigation.
 ?:.3 No. 3514 C-326/A-326
 Pare 2

 These are difficult cas-es £ot all concerned, particularly for t^e- J Organization. It has forcefull=- and with skill advanced its many concerns with respect to the application of the Carrier's Drua Police.
 In this respect, it has raised cuestions about and objections to the -
 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 -
 autrioritativelv about the validit%%· of the urine test and be cross- -
 examined so that relevant information could be elicited.
 The Board has carefullv considered these contentions. Toe under- - stand the points raised by the-Craanization and do recognize that the%,___ are not without merit in certain situations. However, the record here= shows that the Carrier emoloved a- highly reputable testing facility, which used the latest-technicues and procedures to assure the accurac-_- - ofits -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 crossexamination 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 theses 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 prograaZ 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 anotheropportunity to --retain his employment. The consequences of his failure to comply with the Carrier's direction were of his choice.



F. .~,. Domza ci __7 ckff-r muess g . P. Cassese
 C ier M r Neutral Mem r employee Member

 Dated: 6- V-p0 - _ -