PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance o-f- 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.
option for an evaluation by the Carrier's Employee Counseling Service.
 If this evaluation shows that the employeedoes not haveanaddiction
 problem, the employee must provide a negative drug test within forty
 five~(45) days. In those cases where the evaluation indicates-an addic
 tion 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 Claimant had been charged and found guilty of offenses concerned with the use of prohibited drugs. We have carefully reviewed the evidence before us and find, on the basis of the review, that the Carrier has met its burden of proof requirements. Accordingly,- the claim must be denied.
 Page No. 2

 These are difficult cases for all concerned, particularly for the organization. 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 information could be elicited.
 The Board has carefully considered these contentions. We understand the points raised by the organization 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 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 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 prograu as 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 to comply with the Carrier's direction were of his choice.



7z, >
 F. .Domza i EckeharMuess~i J. . Cassese
 Ca er r Neutral Member Employee Member

 Dated: v . a$ o?D _-