PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Emoloyes _
 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 thepublic. 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 employee entersan 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, who was subject to random drug testing, on August 18, 1987, provided a urine sample that tested positive for cannabinoid. -The Carrier then convened a hearing on a charge that the Claimant had failed to comply with its Drug Policy. The Claimant was found guilty of the charge and separated from the service.
 PL B \o. 3514 - C-335/A-335
 Page-2

 These are difficult cases for al-1 concerned, particularly for-t':e -
 Organization: It has forcefully and with skill advanced its man,/ con- - -
 cerns with respect to the application of the Carrier's Drug Policv.
 In this respect, it has raised questions about and objections to t'.^.e
 Carrier's testing-procedures-as--well as the Carrier's failure to ^roduce
 medical cersonne1 at the hearinc held on this matter who could sneak,
 authoritativel·r 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 understand the points raised by the Organization and do recognize that theyare 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 prcgraR 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.



F. J. Domza ki~ .. c k. Muesli J. P.~Cassese _-
 Cj~,Zrier er Neutral Memb Employee Member

 Dated: 6-z/-PO -