upserfighter

Active Member
Hi guys,

So my friend was recently terminated after an employee claimed to observe him drinking alcohol. The coworker also stated that he had said something about beers in the vehicle. The coworker of course reported what he claims he had seen to management. My buddy says that when management called him, they weren't having it. They stated that they *knew* he was drinking and that he would be fired. They called the police and told them he was "drunk" and "intoxicated". Now, here's where it gets interesting. When the police showed up, they put him through a field sobriety test. He passed (of course) because he wasn't drunk. They searched the PC to find beers. They searched his clothes and bag. No beers. No evidence of alcohol or drugs. When he called the Sup. back, the Sup said he would have to go to the hospital to get a blood alcohol test (I've never seen or heard of this before). He went to the hospital and, of course, came back negative. However, he did not take a drug test. Sup. wanted him to take a "drug and alcohol test". He, not knowing what he was doing, apparently took only the drug test. When I googled this, it says there are several urine tests that test for both blood and alcohol, but for some reason the hospital couldn't do this test and instead had two separate tests. One blood alcohol. One urine drug panel. He took the alcohol test and left. When he goes in the next day, he's fired. Pack your :censored2: and leave. "Violation of UPS Drug and Alcohol Policy."

At the local hearing, he told management multiple times that he was not drunk and wasn't drinking. He says he never used drugs and asked if they had reasonable cause to require the separate drug test. He decided to fight the case at the Panel. When he went to the Panel, his BA told him it was done. He can go to treatment and get his job back or that's it. No opportunity to fight it. No chance to have his word heard.

Is this legit? This seems super fishy and, I like my friend a lot but I don't know what to believe. If the test came back negative, how can they make him do this? Does my friend need a lawyer?
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
Hi guys,

So my friend was recently terminated after an employee claimed to observe him drinking alcohol. The coworker also stated that he had said something about beers in the vehicle. The coworker of course reported what he claims he had seen to management. My buddy says that when management called him, they weren't having it. They stated that they *knew* he was drinking and that he would be fired. They called the police and told them he was "drunk" and "intoxicated". Now, here's where it gets interesting. When the police showed up, they put him through a field sobriety test. He passed (of course) because he wasn't drunk. They searched the PC to find beers. They searched his clothes and bag. No beers. No evidence of alcohol or drugs. When he called the Sup. back, the Sup said he would have to go to the hospital to get a blood alcohol test (I've never seen or heard of this before). He went to the hospital and, of course, came back negative. However, he did not take a drug test. Sup. wanted him to take a "drug and alcohol test". He, not knowing what he was doing, apparently took only the drug test. When I googled this, it says there are several urine tests that test for both blood and alcohol, but for some reason the hospital couldn't do this test and instead had two separate tests. One blood alcohol. One urine drug panel. He took the alcohol test and left. When he goes in the next day, he's fired. Pack your :censored2: and leave. "Violation of UPS Drug and Alcohol Policy."

At the local hearing, he told management multiple times that he was not drunk and wasn't drinking. He says he never used drugs and asked if they had reasonable cause to require the separate drug test. He decided to fight the case at the Panel. When he went to the Panel, his BA told him it was done. He can go to treatment and get his job back or that's it. No opportunity to fight it. No chance to have his word heard.

Is this legit? This seems super fishy and, I like my friend a lot but I don't know what to believe. If the test came back negative, how can they make him do this? Does my friend need a lawyer?
So wait you're saying no supervisor at all went with him to the clinic when he was taking these tests?

They suspected him of being drunk and let him drive himself to a clinic to take an alcohol and drug test?

I'm sorry but this makes no sense if that's true.
 

upserfighter

Active Member
So wait you're saying no supervisor at all went with him to the clinic when he was taking these tests?

They suspected him of being drunk and let him drive himself to a clinic to take an alcohol and drug test?

I'm sorry but this makes no sense if that's true.
No. To clarify; he was never "observed" by two supervisors. No supervisors approached him and physically observed him. A 3 way phone call was set up with a Union steward where he was questioned and denied everything. There was confusion over whether or not there may be alcohol in one of the packages in the package car. He denied possessing "personal alcohol" (vs. alcohol to be delivered/signed for). No supervisors accompanied him to the hospital. He was asked to walk back to the facility and was transported by an HR employee in her personal vehicle to the hospital.

It seems odd to me. I think the sup's ignored the agreement around the requirement for 2 sups to observe and note articulable facts about intoxication (i.e. bloodshot eyes, slurred speech). No sups ever witnessed him to be drunk/intoxicated (he says he was completely sober).
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
No. To clarify; he was never "observed" by two supervisors. No supervisors approached him and physically observed him. A 3 way phone call was set up with a Union steward where he was questioned and denied everything. There was confusion over whether or not there may be alcohol in one of the packages in the package car. He denied possessing "personal alcohol" (vs. alcohol to be delivered/signed for). No supervisors accompanied him to the hospital. He was asked to walk back to the facility and was transported by an HR employee in her personal vehicle to the hospital.

It seems odd to me. I think the sup's ignored the agreement around the requirement for 2 sups to observe and note articulable facts about intoxication (i.e. bloodshot eyes, slurred speech). No sups ever witnessed him to be drunk/intoxicated (he says he was completely sober).
Doesn't matter if they only had one supervisor observe him.
Screenshot_20211202-120812_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
 

Yeet

“Cell-phone Yeet”
Can’t they require a drug or alcohol test with reasonable cause or suspicion?
Yup. I also don’t get why he doesn’t understand why UPS would send him for both a drug and alcohol screen. If you get into an accident or have someone report you for being under the influence, you are going to piss AND blow without question. It’s SOP.
 

UnionStrong

You can go now, scab
Yup. I also don’t get why he doesn’t understand why UPS would send him for both a drug and alcohol screen. If you get into an accident or have someone report you for being under the influence, you are going to piss AND blow without question. It’s SOP.
What I thought.
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
Yup. I also don’t get why he doesn’t understand why UPS would send him for both a drug and alcohol screen. If you get into an accident or have someone report you for being under the influence, you are going to piss AND blow without question. It’s SOP.
Only if it's a serious accident.
 

upserfighter

Active Member
No accident. He was driving perfectly fine.
He never took the drug test. The hospital told him it was not a "legal test" and the Sup. wouldn't pick up the phone when he called. He's only been driving for a few months so he wasn't familiar with the agreement.

Possibly the only mistake he made was not specifically requesting that the hospital do a drug test. But everything else seems fishy. The police report says he passed the field sobriety and did not appear to be intoxicated (either drugs or alcohol)
 
Top