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 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 Counsel ing 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 evidence shows that a urine sample provided by the Claimant, on August 18, 1987, tested positive for cannabinoid. Following an investigation on the matter, the Claimant was separated from the service of the Carrier.
 PLB No. 351 4 C-334/A-334
 Pace 2

Organization. It has forcefull· and with skill advanced its man,., con=
 cerns with respect to-the a:r-1_caticn of the Carrier's Drug Policv.
 In this-.respect, it has rairoc'. -;ti~stions 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-of the urine test and be cross
 examined so that relevant information could be elicited.
 The Board has carefully considered these contentions. We under- - stand the points raised by the Organization and do recognize that the=are not without merit in certain situations. However, the record here' shows that the Carrier emplo;·eda highly reputable testing facility, which used the latest technicues and procedures to assure the accurac%rof its tests. Therefore, it is established thatthe 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 crossexa_mination 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 progra7
 as well as ones like it used by other Carriers has been upheld bynu
 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 ooroply with the Carrier's direction
 were of his choice. -

      The claim is denied.


                1__7 i


    .' Domz5J l ki cke ~'.uessi J. P. Cassese

Crier M er Neutral Memb Employee Member -

 Dated:-ef-,2O - -