PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 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 Polices 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) davs. 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.
 On September 3, 1987, the Claimant, upon the instructions of the Carrier, provided a urine sample that tested positive for cannabinoid. Following an investigation that found him guilty of a charge that he had failed to comply with the Carrier's Drug Policy, the Claimant was dismissed from the service.
 PLB No. 3514 C-332/A-332
 Page 2

 These are difficult cases for all concerned,.particularl_r for theorganization. It has forcefully and with skill advanced its many concerns with respect to the application of the Carrier's Drug-PolicV.In this- respect, it has raised -·vestions about and objections to the Carrier's testing procedures as well as the Carrier's failure to produce 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 carefully considered these contentions. We understand the points raised by the Oraanization and do recognize that they are not without merit in certain situations. However, the record ;.ere 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 crossexamination does not fatally flaw the fairness of the proceedings.
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 programs
 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 manv
 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.





r Domza i cke ssig- J. P. Cassese
 Wrier M r Neutral Member Employee Member

 Dated: (y-~f-~O -