Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Arbitration of Drug Testing Disputes

  • Chapter
Drug Testing in the Workplace

Part of the book series: Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems ((AADP,volume 11))

Abstract

The forensic laboratory has assumed a pivotal role in the employment relationship in the United States; job tenure often hinges upon the analysis of body fluids. When the results of urine or blood tests for drugs are introduced as evidence in workplace disciplinary disputes, the central issue typically is whether the test result, or the result in combination with other evidence, provides just cause for discharge or suspension. The arbitrator is required to resolve a host of factual, technical, and due process questions. Although constitutional and legal precepts have some bearing on such disputes, the arbitrator’s primary task is to decide whether, in light of all the circumstances, the discipline is a reasonable exercise of managerial prerogative. In so doing, arbitrators apply the “law of the shop,” which includes written collective bargaining agreements (union-management contracts) and unwritten customary practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abrams, R., 1989, Georgia Power Co., Daily Labor Report, No. 167 (August 30, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Alleyne, R., 1987, Southern California Gas Co., Labor Arbitration Reports 89:393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babiskin, W., 1985, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation And OBEW, Sys. Council U-11, unpublished, 54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bairstow, F., 1988, City of Miami and Fraternal Order of Police, 18–19, unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baroni, B. J., 1987, Metropolitan Transit Authority, Houston, Labor Arbitration Reports 89:129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, 1988, Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry: A Review of the Technical Issues, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boals, B., 1990, Metropolitan Dade County, Labor Arbitration in Government (February, 1982), 20(2):4258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boner, P. J., 1985, Union Oil Company of California, Labor Arbitration Reports 87:297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brisco, C., 1987, Valvoline Oil Company, Labor Arbitration Reports 89:209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1986, Alcohol and Drugs in the Workplace: Costs, Controls and Controversies, Special Report, 108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caraway, J. F., 1988, Vulcan Materials Co., Labor Arbitration Reports 90:1161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J., 1985, Georgia-Pacific Corp., Labor Arbitration Reports, 86:411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Concepcion, D., 1984, Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co., American Arbitration Association, Sum of Lab. Arb. Awards, 303(10).

    Google Scholar 

  • Concepcion, D., 1986, Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Labor Arbitration Reports, 88:1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, L., 1986, Roadway Express Inc., Labor Arbitration Reports 87:224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell/Smithers Report, 1992, The Fatigue Factor, Cornell University School of Industrial Relations, Ithaca, NY (January, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, C. E., 1988, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, communication with the author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, W. P., 1987, Kaydon Corp., Labor Arbitration Reports 89:377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denenberg, T. S., and Denenberg, R. V., 1991, Alcohol and Other Drugs: Issues in Arbitration, BNA Books, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health and Human Services, 1988, Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, Federal Register (April 11, 1988), 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Transportation, 1988, Federal Aviation Administration, Appendix 1-Drug Testing Program 14(1): 1, 121(1):469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draznin, J., 1987, ITT Barton Instruments, Co., Labor Arbitration Reports 89:1196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubowski, K. (1987), Drug Testing: Scientific Perspectives, Nova Law Review 11:528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastern District of Tennessee, 1986, Lovvorn v. City of Chattanooga, 647:875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eischen, D., 1989, Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company and United Transportation Union, unpublished arbitration, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Employee Testing and the Law, 1986, November, Workplace Alcohol Testing: Cost-Effective, (November, 1986), 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. J., 1987, Hobart Corporation, Labor Arbitration Reports 88:905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B., 1988, Boston Edison Company, American Arbitration Association, Sum. Lab. Arb. Awards, 363(1), Quotations are from pages in unpublished manuscript version.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullmer, J. A., 1988, Stanadyne, Western Division, Labor Arbitration Reports 91:993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, E. H., 1987, Modine Manufacturing Company, Labor Arbitration Reports 90:189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D., 1987, Trailways, Inc., Labor Arbitration Reports 88:1073.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimes, J. A., 1987, Marathon Petroleum Co., Labor Arbitration Reports 89:716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, H. J., Caudill and Boone, 1985, Crisis in drug testing, Journal of the American Medical Association 253:2382.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heinsz, T. J., 1987, Day & Zimmerman, Inc., Labor Arbitration Reports 88:1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, M. et al., 1986, Discipline and discharge for off-duty misconduct: What are the arbitral standards?, Proceeding of the National Academy of Arbitrators, 152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt, Finnigan, Nee, Shults, and Butler, 1987. Drug testing in the workplace: Are methods legally defensible, A survey of experts, arbitrators, and testing laboratories, Journal of the American Medical Association 258:504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. A., 1988, Southern California Rapid Transit District and United Transportation Union, unpublished, 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagel, S., 1987, Boise Cascade Corp., unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasher, R., 1986, National Football League Players Association and National Football League Management Council, unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. B., 1981, American Standard, Labor Arbitration Reports, 77:1085.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, L., 1986, Boston Edison Company and Utility Workers Union, Local 387, American Arbitration Association, Case No. 1130-1520-85, unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiman, M., 1992, Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results, Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, G. R., 1986, Union Plaza Hotel, Labor Arbitration Reports 88:528, 531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milentz, C. R., 1987, Texas City Refining, Labor Arbitration Reports 89:1159.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Report on Substance Abuse, 1987 BNA, Inc., Washington, D.C. (January 7, 1987) 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Report on Substance Abuse, 1990 BNA, Inc., Washington, D.C. (May 23, 1990) 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • New York Times, 1987, Lloyd and Wiggins of Rockets Banned for Drug Use (January 14, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, S. J., 1987, Jim Walter Resources, Inc., Labor Arbitration Reports 90:367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 1990, Diablo Canyon (California) Power Plant Fitness for Duty Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Attachment I.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poisonlab, Inc., 1989, Drug Testing Services for Business and Industry (September, 1989), 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappaport, L., 1989, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority, Labor Arbitration in Government, 19:4185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J., 1988, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and Local Union 689, Amalgamated Transit Union, unpublished, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, R. L., 1988, Stone Container Corp., Labor Arbitration Reports 91:1186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, P. W., 1986, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Labor Arbitration Reports 88:373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, A. R., 1986, Alta Bates Hospital, Labor Arbitration Reports 87:719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, M. A., 1991, Arbitration in the Employer Welfare State, Proceedings of the National Academy of Arbitrators, 94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmertz, E., 1986, Bath Iron Works Corporation, unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, M., 1986, Wappingers Central School District, New York, unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, R. et al., 1986, Cocaine in Herbal Tea, Journal of the American Medical Association 255:40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simpkins, J., 1989, Philadelphia Gas Works, American Arbitration Association, Summary of Labor Arbitrations Awards, 364(7).

    Google Scholar 

  • Speroff, B. J., 1987, Phoenix Transit System, Labor Arbitration Reports 89:973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staudohar, P., 1989, Owens-Brockway, Labor Arbitration Reports, Sum. of Lab. Arb. Awards, 365(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoltenberg, C. F., 1988, Sharpies Coal Corp, Labor Arbitration Reports 91:1065.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strasshofer, R., 1990, Toledo Edison, Co., American Arbitration Association, Summary of Labor Arbitration Awards, 372(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Warns, M., 1986, Gem City Chem, Inc., Labor Arbitration Reports 86:1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington Post, 1986, The Nuclear Dilemma: Safety and the Drug Issue (May 5, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wies, E. M., 1987, Sanford Corporation, Labor Arbitration Reports 89:968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarowsky, S., 1987, Regional Transportation District, Labor Arbitration Reports 90:27.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Denenberg Associates, Red Hook, New York, 12571, USA

    Tia Schneider Denenberg & R. V. Denenberg

Authors
  1. Tia Schneider Denenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. V. Denenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Social Evaluation and Research, Addiction Research Foundation, London, Ontario, Canada

    Scott Macdonald

  2. Institute for Behavioral Research, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA

    Paul Roman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schneider Denenberg, T., Denenberg, R.V. (1994). Arbitration of Drug Testing Disputes. In: Macdonald, S., Roman, P. (eds) Drug Testing in the Workplace. Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems, vol 11. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2399-4_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2399-4_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-6017-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-2399-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation