Drug and Alcohol Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

McCard

New Member
I have been suspended for a Drug and Alcohol Violation stemming from a reasonable suspicion accusation. (1)The company drug and Alcohol Policy states no alcohol consumption while ON DUTY. I am in a two week training session at the time of the occurance. Not actively working in my full time duties. (2) Reasonable Suspicion testing can occur if two individuals concur that I am under the influence. I was seen in a restaurant having a single beer with my sandwich. Time given for lunch was for one hour. I had a large fish sandwich with my meal and I showed no outwards signs of being under the influence or having abused alcohol. (3) I was not in uniform. I was wearing blue jeans , t-shirt, sneakers and a hoodie that covered my ID badge, but a company lanyard was partially visable. The company has uniforms for affected personal with the general public.(4) Immediate suspension occurs pending test results and Disciplinary action can occur with a test of .02 or higher. I blew .000 at the company sight and was suspended immediately following the test even though a negative test allows me to return to my work immediately. I am a little confused. Can anyone shed some light on my situation. Can I be fired for this? The company management isn't even following their own policies.
 
Last edited:
Company policies are not law. You could have been fired for wearing green socks. Unless a union contract is involved, and this is a violation of the contract provisions, you have no legal recourse.
 
I have a cba

I work under a collective bargaining agreement, yes. I have never been in trouble with the company before. I have a nearly perfect attendance record with a handful of commendation letters in my file. Are you telling me I am ON Duty when I punch in for reporting purposes only without punching out as well as not performing any regular functions of my actual job, but simply sitting in a classroom being instructed?
 
Union Rep

I recieved immediate union representation, yes. They don't seem to have many answers to my questions. The D & A Policy in my mind seems up to interpretation of what constitutes being ON DUTY. Was I actively working by definition of a non hourly worker. No. I was participating in formal classroom training away from my normal work area. Was I being observed to be under the influence? No. I was never impaired mentally or physically. Was I abusing alcohol? No. I had one beer with a huge sandwich. Was I ever in uniform? No. I was in blue jeans. Was I on the clock? No. I had been punching in for reporting purposes only, no punchouts. Did I test positive for any Alcohol? No. Testing was negative .000.
 
Classroom training that is mandatory or job-related IS work time, no matter where it is, so yes, you WERE working. You don't have to be "in uniform". Prohibiting alcohol use during lunch breaks is legal. "Punching in" and "punching out" is irrelevant.
 
I tell you what if this is what the United States of America has come to I feel ashamed to be a citizen of this country. I have broken no laws. I tested negative.
 
I tell YOU what. Go find an attorney if you think some law has been violated. I'm sure you will find somebody who will take your thousands of dollars then have the case thrown out as frivolous.
 
Thats not what I'm saying at all. You tell me what I have done that is ethically and morally wrong. I was not under the influence. I did not pose a threat to the companies well being. I was simply having lunch. Is that what this has come to that we are being monitered to what we eat and drink without excess. This whole situation is rediculous.
 
Well lucky for me I haven't been terminated yet. Hopefully I will get a drop dead letter and time off without pay. I got on this site to get some information. It just goes to show you that corporations run this country not our government. You have said the company has broken no law. Well what law did I break? Don't I have rights as a US Citizen to live my life within the confines of the law? Do you think God will judge me for having a beer for lunch?
 
Geez! relax. So you think you should have to break a law in order for an employer to take corrective action, suspend or even terminate someone? You need to come back to reality. Your rights haven't been violated and get some help.
 
I never said my rights have been violated. Although I feel violated. So you tell me what I did that was so bad to be considered for termination. I am not a alcoholic. I have maybe two or three beers a week. I am a hard working individual with a wife and three kids. People used to say around here it takes 1 oh, Fu.. to get rid of three ataboys. well I have at least six ataboys. I quess the ratio is going up.
 
McCard,

No one here would disagree with you that the situation is idiotic.

You came to this website looking for a legal opinion. You were given that.

Other than discriminatory actions, contractual obligations, etc., there are NO legal requirements of how a company interprets and/or engages their corporate policies and procedures.

There is NO law that says they must abide by their own policy which indicates "Immediate suspension occurs pending test results and Disciplinary action can occur with a test of .02 or higher". If they choose instead to terminate you if your results were zero or .01, it is irrelevant. They can fire you for ANY reason as long as it is not due to discrimination or other illegal means.

What you have described is NOT illegal.

Your gripe is with your company, not with this website.
 
McCard said:
I never said my rights have been violated. Although I feel violated. So you tell me what I did that was so bad to be considered for termination. I am not a alcoholic. I have maybe two or three beers a week. I am a hard working individual with a wife and three kids. People used to say around here it takes 1 oh, Fu.. to get rid of three ataboys. well I have at least six ataboys. I quess the ratio is going up.
Click to expand...

I left you answer for your other post.

I'll follow up here.

You left out the part where you admitted to authoring and signing a statement, as to what you ate and drank.

You should have admitted to nothing until you spoke with a lawyer or now I learn, your union rep.

You now have to defend your own words, even though you blew a ZERO!!

Good luck!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Common sense would have someone in management sit down and have a face to face conversation with the employee. See that by their appearance they are not intoxicated. Talk about the situation. Hand the employee a written warning and that would be the end of it. Message recieved. But we don't live in that kind of world anymore. Its really sad. I've had enough of your legalize. Thanks for all your legal wisdom and I hope you all have great day.
 
McCard,

Agreed, common sense would dictate a better solution. Yet, we all live in a world where the "law" dictates and not always in a sensible manner. It is not "our legalize" as you refer to us on this legal website, but "our legalize" referring to you, me, and everyone else in this country.

Good day to you too.
 
Something I did remember yesterday was that a couple of years ago we had a guy come into work. (There are other similar cases) He smelled of alcohol and was sent for testing. He tested positive while at his regular work , sent home with a suspension and had to go through a rehab course. Today he is back to work and does regular testing. Do any previous alcohol related cases mean anything? Or do changes in policy take presidence?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top