Reference no: EM132227370

Question: In your opinion, you will be assuming the role of an arbitrator. A) Give reasons for your decisions that you ruled in the Union’s favor. B) Argue in favor of expanding the drug program to include the prohibition of sale, possession, or use of illegal substances on the employee’s own time. C) Argue against expanding the drug program to include the prohibition of sale, possession, or use of illegal substances on the employee’s own time.

Note: Mention the recommendation as the Main heading in few words. Support your explanation with the word count of approximately 130 words in each alphabet category (A, B, C) with a total of about 400 words (Four hundred words).

Case: The company and the union had negotiated a typical substance abuse prevention and treatment program in their collective bargaining agreement. It prohibited the use of legally obtained drugs and alcohol if such use adversely affected the employee’s job performance. It also prohibited the sale, purchase, transfer, use, or possession of illegal drugs “on the work premises or while on employer business.” It allowed for testing in the following circumstances: for reasonable cause, after on-the-job accidents or incidents, for safety-sensitive jobs, and for reinstatement after treatment for drug or alcohol abuse. The collective bargaining agreement also stated, in a separate article, the general principle that “there is no intent to intrude upon the private lives of employees.”

The employee tested positive for an illegal substance after an on-the-job accident and was enrolled in an inpatient treatment program. At the completion of the program, he was reinstated subject to the normal provisions that he would continue with aftercare treatment and submit to random testing for three years. The employee was a member of a work crew that reported to work on a regular schedule and was not subject to being called in. In fact, if he chose not to report to work with his crew, there was no penalty. The employee had been called for a random drug test and had been tested eight times, all of which were negative. The ninth time he was called, he was contacted at home on a day he was not scheduled to work and was told to report for a drug test. In this instance, he tested positive, and the company dismissed him. The union appealed.

The union position was that the collective bargaining agreement prohibited intrusion into the private lives of employees, the drug policy prohibited only on-the-job impairment or abuse, and random testing can be used only in relationship to the workplace (i.e., when the employee is, should be, or may be reporting to work, at work, or about to leave work). The employee was not scheduled to work, was not on the employer’s premises or business, and was not subject to being called in to work. His reinstatement agreement to submit to random drug tests meant only those types of random tests consistent with the substance abuse policy (i.e., for on-the-job impairment).

The company’s position was that because some employees can be called into work at any time, the conduct of random testing needs to be on a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week basis; the union had not previously objected, and a past practice can be argued; the employee had violated the collective bargaining agreement by drug use on the job and had agreed to submit to random testing for three years in order to be reinstated, so an argument can be made that his testing then is job related; and this employee could elect not to report to work on any given day, so this reinforces the need to be able to test him on his off-duty time.