1. Was the Employee Right to Refuse the Drug Test?
Question by Randolf M: 1. Was the employee right to refuse the drug test?
Q#2:if you were the union president, how will you fight management in the dismissal of your member?
Most of d paper mill’s employees thought dat 1 of their coworkers got of easy when, after being convicted of cocaine possession, d company took him back with d understanding dat for d nxt year he would b subjected to “spot drug testing.” It was also understood that, of course,if such testing disclosed use of an illegal substance, he would b fired. Shortly thereafter, d employee ws injured in an automobile accident & placed on d sick list for 2 months.When he returned, management thought it d right time for a urine test. A security guard escorted d man to d physician,who askd him to provide a sample under supervision. The employee did not refuse;he just insisted that he unable to provide the sample. He was offered water and other liquids to drink but nothing helped. After several hours, the doctor threatened to obtain a sample by catheterization. Still the employee refuse. He was fired
Best answer:
Answer by Yo Mom
The guy did not live up to his terms of employment ..he should have prpvided the sample..
Answer by Joanne H
no
Carson City Sheriff's Log: Man arrested on drug–possession, child-neglect counts
10:49 a.m.: A 35-year-old Carson City man was arrested in the 3600 block of Imperial Way on suspicion of child neglect and possession of drug paraphernalia, as well as on a failure-to-appear/traffic warrant. … She reportedly failed four field …
Read more on Nevada Appeal
Handgun sends high school into lockdown
James Zantrese Austin, 18, a senior at the school, was arrested on suspicion of possession of a firearm on a school campus, a Class D felony, said Capt. Jim Hansard, public information officer for the Maumelle Police Department. Bond was set at $ 40,000 …
Read more on Arkansas News
I do not believe that legally they can fire him because he could not obtain a sample. Secondly, since he was in a car accident, he may have been on medication and being scared that it would show up and not thinking straight, he didn’t urinate for that reason. If he was with my husband’s union, they would go to arbitration for the guy because though the doctor “threatened” he should have done the cathe and got the urine and if it showed a narcotic that was prescribed by a doc because of his accident, then he would’ve been in the clear– if it was another narcotic without a script- he would deserve to be dismissed.
Well this is a tricky one. If the employee was physically unable to provide a specemin, I don’t think he should have been fired. I believe the employee should consult a workers’ rights attorney or the US Dept of Labor to help with this case. After an auto accident, injuries and medicine he takes may make it more difficult to urinate on command.
Union or non-union, if it’s agreed upon that “said employee” had to submit to UA, failure to submit can result in termination. It seems like there was plenty of reasonable cause here for random testing. Sounds like management could have waited and kept “said employee” in the office until he could urinate as well. Bottom line is refusal is grounds for dismissal.
In a union you’re terminated but can still file a grievance.
Do you really TALK like you type??
I would not be staking the reputation of my union on someone who agreed to specific terms, and then refused to follow through. This individuals actions make him appear to be guilty. If I were the union president I would protect my union, by standing by the argument that he did not honor his commitment.
If he agreed to the terms of drug testing, and he was not using drugs, he would have no excuse in not taking the test. Under normal circumstances, with water consumption, no one would have any excuse in not being able to take the urine test within 2 hours of drinking fluids. He could have also offered to give blood, if he truly had nothing to hide.
As to concerns about legal medications he may have been issued. If they were legally issued, and he discloses them to the testing facility, those medications would not be held against him in drug testing. This sounds like someone your company is better off without.
You pick your battles. You don’t fight to save someone who’s obviously not a man of their word. You fight for the honorable employees in your union.