PARTIES -Brotherhood of Maintenance ofWay Emoloyes
 to -and
 DISPUTE: Consolidated RailCorporation

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

FINDINGS: The Claimant had been instructed to rid his svstem of cannabinoids because he failed to comply with those instructions, he_ was separated from the service.
 Page 2

 These are difficult cases-for-all concerned, particularly for the organization. It has forcefully and with skilT'advanced its manv concerns with respect to the application of the Carrier's Drug Policy. In this respect, it has-raised ·mcstions about -and objections to the Carrier's testing procedures as well as the Carrier's failure to producs medical personnel at the hearinc field 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 Hoard has carefullv 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 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 prograas well as ones like it used by other Carriers has been upheld by numerous 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-tD-comply with the Carrier's direction - were of his choice.





F. J Domza~ i Eekeh~ird Muessiq j - J. P. Cassese -
 Carher Me. r Neutral Member/ - Employee Member

 Dated: 6-,f-fV