PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of 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.
 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 tl-at 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 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 put on notice to keep his system free of prohibited drgus. His failure to do so resulted in his termination from the service.
 Page No. 2

 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 produc~ 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.
stand 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 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 ofits employees, as noted-earlier. The substance of the Carrier's progra

 as well as ones like it

 merous arbitral Awards. have no basis to arrive Awards. In the instant effect, he was provided

 used by other Carriers has been upheld by nu-

 Given the established facts of this case, we at an Award that runs counter to these many case, the Claimant was put on notice and, in 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. /. Domz k1
 Ca ier M er

 Dated: 4 -IY-Q/

Ecce ar Muesg g

Neutral Meter


J. P. Cassese
 Employee Member