PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of_Wav 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 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 i45) 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 Claimant, because he had been in violation of the Carrier's Drug Policy, was subject to random drug testingfor a period of three years. Because a urine sample that he provided on August 18, 1987 tested positive, he was subsequently dismissed from the service.
 PLB No. 3514 C-333/A-333
 Pace Z

 These are difficult cases for all concerned,--particularly for t:~eOrganization.- It has force tuli·,* and with skill advanced its many concerns with respect to the a^cllcation of the Carrier's Drug Polic"·. In this respect; it has rii;, . ::-~t~ons about and objections to the Carrier's testina procedures as well as the Carrier's failure to produce medical personnel at the hearic held on this matter who could speak authoritatively about the validity=of the urine test and be cross-examined so that relevant information could be elicited.
 The Board has carefull_: considered these contentions. We under- - stand the points raised by the -raanization-and do recognize that then 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 accurac~_· 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 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. . Domz~jki Ecke cr P.uessl J. P. Cassese -
 C&tier Mehd~er Neutral Memb Employee Member

 Dated: Wa -y-QO