PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of 'gay 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 ofthe 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) 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 Grievant, on June 23, 1987, was directed to provide a negative drug screen within forty-five (45) days. T-he evidence shows that he failed to comply with this request and he was dismissed from the service.
 PLB No. 3514 C-329/A-329
 Page 2 -

 These are difficult cases ',_r all concerned, particularly for t^e organization. It has forceful'!,.- and with skill advanced its many concerns with respect to the ap^1=cacion of the Carrier's Drug Policy. In this respect, it has raised -luestions-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 authoritatively about the validity-ofthe urine test and be crossexamined so that relevant information could be elicited.
 The Board has carefullv considered these contentions. We understand the points raised by the Organization and do recognize that theyare not without meritin 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 tes-ts. 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 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 program 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.,' . Domza i Eckehge(:r lT4uessig ' J. P. Cassese
 Corier M r Neutral Member Employee Member

 Dated: &/, - ~t -~0 - _ _