PARTIES -Brotherhood of t,2aintenance of Way.Emnloyes
 to -and-
 DISPUTE: Consolidated Rail Corporation

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: _

FINDINGS: The Claimantwas subject to drug testing for a period of three years. Because he tested positive for prohibited drugs during that period, he was separated from the service:
 These are difficult cases for all concerned, particularly for theOrganization. It has forcefully and with skill advanced its many concerns 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 information could be elicited.
 Page 2

 The Board has carefully considered these contentions. We understand the points raised by the Organization arid 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 oninion". Accordinqlv,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.

 AWARD
The claim is denied.

 F. J. Domza ki
 CaxEtier Me r

 Dated: (P -,~`go

Eckeho Muessig
 Neutral Member]

 . P. Cassese
 Employee Member