Arbitration of Drug Testing Disputes

  • Tia Schneider Denenberg
  • R. V. Denenberg
Part of the Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems book series (AADP, volume 11)


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.


Random Testing National Football League Collective Bargaining Agreement Reasonable Suspicion Transit Authority 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrams, R., 1989, Georgia Power Co., Daily Labor Report, No. 167 (August 30, 1989).Google Scholar
  2. Alleyne, R., 1987, Southern California Gas Co., Labor Arbitration Reports 89:393.Google Scholar
  3. Babiskin, W., 1985, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation And OBEW, Sys. Council U-11, unpublished, 54.Google Scholar
  4. Bairstow, F., 1988, City of Miami and Fraternal Order of Police, 18–19, unpublished.Google Scholar
  5. Baroni, B. J., 1987, Metropolitan Transit Authority, Houston, Labor Arbitration Reports 89:129.Google Scholar
  6. Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, 1988, Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry: A Review of the Technical Issues, 5.Google Scholar
  7. Boals, B., 1990, Metropolitan Dade County, Labor Arbitration in Government (February, 1982), 20(2):4258.Google Scholar
  8. Boner, P. J., 1985, Union Oil Company of California, Labor Arbitration Reports 87:297.Google Scholar
  9. Brisco, C., 1987, Valvoline Oil Company, Labor Arbitration Reports 89:209.Google Scholar
  10. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1986, Alcohol and Drugs in the Workplace: Costs, Controls and Controversies, Special Report, 108.Google Scholar
  11. Caraway, J. F., 1988, Vulcan Materials Co., Labor Arbitration Reports 90:1161.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke, J., 1985, Georgia-Pacific Corp., Labor Arbitration Reports, 86:411.Google Scholar
  13. Concepcion, D., 1984, Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co., American Arbitration Association, Sum of Lab. Arb. Awards, 303(10).Google Scholar
  14. Concepcion, D., 1986, Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Labor Arbitration Reports, 88:1.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, L., 1986, Roadway Express Inc., Labor Arbitration Reports 87:224.Google Scholar
  16. Cornell/Smithers Report, 1992, The Fatigue Factor, Cornell University School of Industrial Relations, Ithaca, NY (January, 1992).Google Scholar
  17. Curtis, C. E., 1988, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, communication with the author.Google Scholar
  18. Daniel, W. P., 1987, Kaydon Corp., Labor Arbitration Reports 89:377.Google Scholar
  19. Denenberg, T. S., and Denenberg, R. V., 1991, Alcohol and Other Drugs: Issues in Arbitration, BNA Books, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  20. Department of Health and Human Services, 1988, Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, Federal Register (April 11, 1988), 53.Google Scholar
  21. Department of Transportation, 1988, Federal Aviation Administration, Appendix 1-Drug Testing Program 14(1): 1, 121(1):469.Google Scholar
  22. Draznin, J., 1987, ITT Barton Instruments, Co., Labor Arbitration Reports 89:1196.Google Scholar
  23. Dubowski, K. (1987), Drug Testing: Scientific Perspectives, Nova Law Review 11:528.Google Scholar
  24. Eastern District of Tennessee, 1986, Lovvorn v. City of Chattanooga, 647:875.Google Scholar
  25. Eischen, D., 1989, Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company and United Transportation Union, unpublished arbitration, 5.Google Scholar
  26. Employee Testing and the Law, 1986, November, Workplace Alcohol Testing: Cost-Effective, (November, 1986), 8.Google Scholar
  27. Feldman, M. J., 1987, Hobart Corporation, Labor Arbitration Reports 88:905.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Fullmer, J. A., 1988, Stanadyne, Western Division, Labor Arbitration Reports 91:993.Google Scholar
  30. Goldstein, E. H., 1987, Modine Manufacturing Company, Labor Arbitration Reports 90:189.Google Scholar
  31. Goodman, D., 1987, Trailways, Inc., Labor Arbitration Reports 88:1073.Google Scholar
  32. Grimes, J. A., 1987, Marathon Petroleum Co., Labor Arbitration Reports 89:716.Google Scholar
  33. Hansen, H. J., Caudill and Boone, 1985, Crisis in drug testing, Journal of the American Medical Association 253:2382.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heinsz, T. J., 1987, Day & Zimmerman, Inc., Labor Arbitration Reports 88:1001.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones, E. A., 1988, Southern California Rapid Transit District and United Transportation Union, unpublished, 40.Google Scholar
  38. Kagel, S., 1987, Boise Cascade Corp., unpublished.Google Scholar
  39. Kasher, R., 1986, National Football League Players Association and National Football League Management Council, unpublished.Google Scholar
  40. Katz, J. B., 1981, American Standard, Labor Arbitration Reports, 77:1085.Google Scholar
  41. Katz, L., 1986, Boston Edison Company and Utility Workers Union, Local 387, American Arbitration Association, Case No. 1130-1520-85, unpublished.Google Scholar
  42. Kleiman, M., 1992, Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  43. McKay, G. R., 1986, Union Plaza Hotel, Labor Arbitration Reports 88:528, 531.Google Scholar
  44. Milentz, C. R., 1987, Texas City Refining, Labor Arbitration Reports 89:1159.Google Scholar
  45. National Report on Substance Abuse, 1987 BNA, Inc., Washington, D.C. (January 7, 1987) 5.Google Scholar
  46. National Report on Substance Abuse, 1990 BNA, Inc., Washington, D.C. (May 23, 1990) 4.Google Scholar
  47. New York Times, 1987, Lloyd and Wiggins of Rockets Banned for Drug Use (January 14, 1987).Google Scholar
  48. Nicholas, S. J., 1987, Jim Walter Resources, Inc., Labor Arbitration Reports 90:367.Google Scholar
  49. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 1990, Diablo Canyon (California) Power Plant Fitness for Duty Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Attachment I.Google Scholar
  50. Poisonlab, Inc., 1989, Drug Testing Services for Business and Industry (September, 1989), 19.Google Scholar
  51. Rappaport, L., 1989, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority, Labor Arbitration in Government, 19:4185.Google Scholar
  52. Ross, J., 1988, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and Local Union 689, Amalgamated Transit Union, unpublished, 5.Google Scholar
  53. Ross, R. L., 1988, Stone Container Corp., Labor Arbitration Reports 91:1186.Google Scholar
  54. Rothschild, P. W., 1986, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Labor Arbitration Reports 88:373.Google Scholar
  55. Rothstein, A. R., 1986, Alta Bates Hospital, Labor Arbitration Reports 87:719.Google Scholar
  56. Rothstein, M. A., 1991, Arbitration in the Employer Welfare State, Proceedings of the National Academy of Arbitrators, 94.Google Scholar
  57. Schmertz, E., 1986, Bath Iron Works Corporation, unpublished.Google Scholar
  58. Schwarz, M., 1986, Wappingers Central School District, New York, unpublished.Google Scholar
  59. Siegel, R. et al., 1986, Cocaine in Herbal Tea, Journal of the American Medical Association 255:40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Simpkins, J., 1989, Philadelphia Gas Works, American Arbitration Association, Summary of Labor Arbitrations Awards, 364(7).Google Scholar
  61. Speroff, B. J., 1987, Phoenix Transit System, Labor Arbitration Reports 89:973.Google Scholar
  62. Staudohar, P., 1989, Owens-Brockway, Labor Arbitration Reports, Sum. of Lab. Arb. Awards, 365(4).Google Scholar
  63. Stoltenberg, C. F., 1988, Sharpies Coal Corp, Labor Arbitration Reports 91:1065.Google Scholar
  64. Strasshofer, R., 1990, Toledo Edison, Co., American Arbitration Association, Summary of Labor Arbitration Awards, 372(1).Google Scholar
  65. Warns, M., 1986, Gem City Chem, Inc., Labor Arbitration Reports 86:1023.Google Scholar
  66. Washington Post, 1986, The Nuclear Dilemma: Safety and the Drug Issue (May 5, 1986).Google Scholar
  67. Wies, E. M., 1987, Sanford Corporation, Labor Arbitration Reports 89:968.Google Scholar
  68. Yarowsky, S., 1987, Regional Transportation District, Labor Arbitration Reports 90:27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tia Schneider Denenberg
    • 1
  • R. V. Denenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Denenberg AssociatesRed HookUSA

Personalised recommendations