NCJ Number
105183
Journal
Labor Law Journal Volume: 38 Issue: 3 Dated: (March 1987) Pages: 157-165
Date Published
1987
Length
9 pages
Annotation
A plethora of legal issues arise for employers seeking to use such aggressive techniques as urinalysis and blood testing as a means for detecting substance abuse.
Abstract
For companies represented by unions, even contractual language recognizing the importance of safety cannot support testing without bargaining with the union. In formulating a testing policy, companies must thoroughly consider the objectives of testing, a written policy statement should be developed, and emphasis should be placed on workplace health and safety. Testing based on reasonable suspicion is likely to encounter fewer legal obstacles than is involuntary random testing. However, random testing may be warranted in cases where evidence of substance abuse indicates a danger to life and limb, where such abuse occurs in an industry subject to heightened scrutiny and regulation, or in cases where the public interest outweighs privacy rights. In both case law and arbitration decisions, testing procedures, where warranted, have been upheld when applied in an even-handed, nondiscriminatory manner. Employers must treat test results as any other confidential personnel information. If evidence of substance abuse is discovered, employers must temper their decisions to comply with handicap discrimination laws. Finally, since alcohol and drug abuse is a social problem affecting a large proportion of the applicant pool and workforce, summary discharge of workers may not provide a solution, and there are strong incentives for rehabilitation for both employers and employees. 43 notes.