PARTIES Brotherhoodof Maintenance of Way Emnloyes
 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 addictionproblem, 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.
 The relevant facts in this claim revealed that the Claimant, upon the request of the Carrier, had provided a urine sample for a drug test that was positive for cannabinoid. The Claimant had been subject to the Carrier's random drug testing procedure because of an earlier-incident related to his use of prohibited drugs.
 PLB :;o. 3514 C-328/A-328 - - -
 Pace 2

 These are difficult cases `or all concerned, particularly for the= Organization. It has force_`_=_:- and with skill advanced its manv concerns'with respect to the a^p~i_cation of the Carrier's Drug Policy. In this respect, it has raised ,;uestions about and objections to the -_ . 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 in_°cr-:ation could be elicited.
 The Board has carefully considered these contentions. We understand the points raised by the -r::anizatioh-and do recognize -that they-, are not without merit in certain situations. However, the record here shows that the Carrier emplo_;ed 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 preseht 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 these efforts, the Carrier initiated a drug testing program which it announced to each ofits employees, as noted earlier. The substance of the Carrier's prograrr, 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.



F./J~I Domzal i Eck and Fluessg J. P. Cassese -
 CaUier Mere Neutral Mem er- Employee Member -

 Dated: - -gD _ -