PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance ofWay Employes -
 to -and
 DISPUTE: Consolidated Rail Corporation

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

FINDINGS: The-evidence-showsthatthe Claimant had tested positive for cannabis. However, because he provided a negative urine sample within forty-five (45) days, he returned to work. On Auaust 18, 1987, his - urine sample tested positive for cocaine and he was subsequently dismissed from the Carrier's service.
 Page No. 2

 These are difficult.cases for all concerned, particularly for theorganization. It has forcefully and with skill advanced its many con-_ cerns with respect to the application of the Carrier's Drug Policy. In this respect, it has raised'-:questions 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 crossexamined so that relevant infC.nnation could be elicited.
 The Board has carefully considered these contentions. We understand the points raised by the:Grganization,and do recognize that they - 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 accuracy of its tests. Therefore, it isLestablished that the test result is a "medical fact" as distinguishedtfrom a "medical opinion". Accordingly, the failure to have a medical person present at the hearing for crossexamination does not fatally fldw 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,zthe Claimant was put on notice and, in effect, he was provided anothen-opportunity to retain his employment. The consequences of his failurb4 to comply with the Carrier's direction were of his choice.



=~ ' ~ ~-wit ~ ^~ C~
 F. J; Domza 1 Eckehard Muessig J. P. Cassese
 Cannier Me Neutral Member Employee Member
 Dated: O __