PARTIES Brotherhood of Kaintenance 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 that the employee does not have an addiction problem, the employee must provide a negative drug test within fortyfive (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 official investigation in the case at hand was held _in absentia After careful review of the record, we find that the Claimant was properly notified. His failure to appear was of his choice. Moreover, we find that the Claimant was actively represented by the organization and his rights were fully protected. With respect to the merits, there is sufficient evidence to show that the Claimant failed to comply with the Carrier's Drug Testing Policy.
 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 cross
 examined 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 program 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.



F.` . Domz s i Ecke ' .Muesli J. P. Cassese
 Ca6rier er Neutral Member Employee Member

 Dated: