PARTIES -Brotherhood of Maintenance of-Way Employes -
 to -and- - _ -
 DISPUTE: Consolidated Rail Corporation _ -
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: -
 Appeal of Trackman Dale A. Avery to be returned to.

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 forty-, five (45) days. In those cases where the evaluation indicates an addiction problem and the employeeenters 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.
finding that the Claimant had not complied with its Drug Testing Policv.
 Specifically, the Claimant failed to provide a negative drug screening
 test within forty-five (45) days required by the Carrier's Policy.
 P.B No. 3514 Page 2

 C-330/A-330

 These are difficult cases-_or all concerned, particularly for tieOrganization: It has forcefull:· and with skill advanced its man,,, co^,-- - cerns with respect to the application of the Carrier's Drug Police. In-this respect, it has raised questions about and objections to the Carrier's testing procedures as well as the Carrier's failure to produ^c medical personnel at the hearina 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 carefullv considered these contentions. We under- - stand the points raised by the organization and do recognize that tze_· 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 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..
 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 prograr

 as well as ones like it
 merous arbitralAwards. have no basis to arrive Awards. In the instant effect, he was provided The consequences of his were of his choice.

 The claim is denied.

 used by other Carriers has been upheld by nu-

 Given the established facts of this case, we at an Award that runs counter to these many case, the Claimant was put on notice and, in another opportunity to retain his employment. failure to comply with the Carrier's direction

 AWARD
;ckeh .uessiq
 Neutral - Membe

 F. :J. omzaJl
 Ca~.fier Me~ri

 Dated: z~, -~A-QO

J~P. Cassese

Employee Member