PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of-Way Emploves -'
 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 operationsand threatened the safety of the public. A summary of its Druq 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 t45) days. In those cases where the evaluation indicatesan 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 Claimant,following problems with the use of prohibited drugs, was on notice to keep his system free of suchsubstances and that he would be subject to random drug testing for a three year period. On - July 7, 1987, a random test of a urine sample provided by the Claimant was positive for cannabinoid. He was subsequently separated from the service.
 PLB No. 3514 C-331/A-331
 Page 2

 These are difficult cases For all concerned, particularly for t?:o
 Organization. It has forcefull·- and ~xith skill advanced its many con.- -- --
 cerns with respect to the apnlication of the Carrier's Drug Policy.
 In this respect, it has raised-.~t,cstions 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 _
 authoritativelv about the validitv of the urine test and be cross
 examined so that relevant information could be elicited. -
 The Board has carefullv considered these contentions. We understand the points raised by the Organization and do recoanize that they - are not without merit in certain situations. However, the record here shows that the Carrier employed a hichly reputable testing facility; which used the latest technicues and ^rocedures 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 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 counterto 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.

      The claim is denied.


F. . D mza i Ecke 1,q
                            ,,QV ruess i assese

Cr e/
 ier Me6~4r Neutral Memb r Employee Member

 Dated: ~ -If-p0 ._ - _ .