Legal Matters

[bbsam]

There are no RANDOM DRUG TESTS on package car drivers.

Unless one has used the company provided drug and alcohol treatment options in which case random drug tests will be a requirement to return to driving.

 

[dannyboy]

There are no RANDOM DRUG TESTS on package car drivers.

This is true, in as far as the word random in concerned. All that means is that they will not on a random basis select drivers at random to be tested for drugs.

But if they suspect, or have proof of a problem, then they can specify that the driver be tested. And if you are involved in a serious accident involving death or serious injury, you can almost bet on it.

But as a rule of thumb, package and air drivers are not tested. There are places where we deliver, and to deliver to them, you have to have regular testing done, but only for those customers.

d

 

[JonFrum]

Even if a package car driver is involved in a serious accident involving death or injury, UPS has no right to have the driver tested for drugs or alcohol. The accident, as such, isn't a reason for testing. It is only if the driver is displaying clear signs of drug or alcohol use that the driver can be tested under "Reasonable Cause" Testing.

 

[dannyboy]

I stand corrected. Thankyou.

d

 

[over9five]

There are places where we deliver, and to deliver to them, you have to have regular testing done, but only for those customers.

d

Like who, Danny?

 

[stewardtwoniner]

Even if a package car driver is involved in a serious accident involving death or injury, UPS has no right to have the driver tested for drugs or alcohol. The accident, as such, isn't a reason for testing. It is only if the driver is displaying clear signs of drug or alcohol use that the driver can be tested under "Reasonable Cause" Testing.

Ya'll don't have serious accident language requiring drug testing?

 

[JonFrum]

Ya'll don't have serious accident language requiring drug testing?

Only for feeder drivers, not for package car drivers. If there is no indication the package car driver is on drugs, there is no requirement to test him.

See Article 35.

 

[dannyboy]

That is another difference between contracts. In Jons area, they dont. Here they did, and I believe still do.

Another area that is under a different contract near us states it more like that if you look or act disoriented they will drug test after a serious accident. I know that in the last 5 years, we have had several delivery drivers tested after a serious accident. None were positive.

Over, we had two businesses here that required it. Will have to get back to you if they still do.

d

 

[Covemastah]

I think all should be tested, I wouldn't want a stoned P/C driver running through my neighborhood with all the kids outside!!! NO ONE should be behind the wheel stoned ,either in a Feeder or a P/Car !!!!! JMOP !!

 

[The Other Side]

Even if a package car driver is involved in a serious accident involving death or injury, UPS has no right to have the driver tested for drugs or alcohol. The accident, as such, isn't a reason for testing. It is only if the driver is displaying clear signs of drug or alcohol use that the driver can be tested under "Reasonable Cause" Testing.[/QUOTE]

JON,

Unfotunately, your interpretation of the reasonable cause testing is incorrect. In package, the company only needs to have a "reasonable suspicion" that a driver is either on drugs or alcohol.

You said the driver has to show "clear signs" of use, and thats incorrect.

The company has some training for thier supervisors, so all that is needed is for them to suspect a driver is on drugs, and then that driver is excorted to a testing facility. If they are wrong, there is no recourse for the driver.

After an accident, the company has "THE RIGHT" to send a driver for testing, reguardless of severity if they believe the driver is acting in a manner consistent with possible influence.

Re-read the article relating to random drug testing and you will see that my position is accurate.

Article 35 of the national master agreement, section 3.8 reasonable cause testing.

"upon reasonable cause, UPS will require an employee to be tested for the use of controlled substances.

Reasonable cause is defined as an employees observable action, appearance, or conduct that clearly indicates the need for a fitness for duty medical evaluation.

The employees conduct must be witnessed by at least two (2) supervisors, if available. The withnesses must have recieved training in observing a persons behavior to determine if a medical evaluation is required.

When the supervisor(s) confronts an employee, a Union representative should be made available pursuant to article 4.

If no steward is present, the employee may select another hourly employee to represent them.

Documentation of the emplyees conduct shall be prepared and signed by the witnesses within twenty four hours of the observed behavior or before the test results are released."

This language is pretty clear. The company can send a driver for testing simply by his appearance alone.

"Clear signs" does not appear in the contract and that should not be repeated or applied by any driver.

Behavior and appearance are the two biggest reasons drivers are sent for fitness for duty testing.

Alcoholics will come to work looking like they got into a fight with their iron in the morning. Most alcoholics skin will have a redness that affects the face and neck.

Drug addicts/users will speak quickly or incoherently, or act in manners that appear to be out of normal behavior.

These types of persons are a risk for the company and the public at large so UPS has generous ground to protect each.

I hope this helps your understanding.

Peace.

 

[dannyboy]

TOS, that is the way I remembered it. But I cant find my updated contract book.......

In the real world, a cop has probable cause to pull you over if you move around in your lane more than 6 inches either way. So if you even get close to the solid or striped line without using turn signals, they have probable cause to pull you over.

I would suspect UPS has the same rights. Also, please not that the above language pertains to any employee, not just drivers, and there is no mention of being involved in a serious accident prior.

In our center, if there was serious injury or death, it was automatic. In some cases, it was to get the driver away from the scene as soon as possible so as not to say something that would cast doubt on the other persons fault.

d

 

[JonFrum]

Even if a package car driver is involved in a serious accident involving death or injury, UPS has no right to have the driver tested for drugs or alcohol. The accident, as such, isn't a reason for testing. It is only if the driver is displaying clear signs of drug or alcohol use that the driver can be tested under "Reasonable Cause" Testing.[/QUOTE]

JON,

Unfotunately, your interpretation of the reasonable cause testing is incorrect. In package, the company only needs to have a "reasonable suspicion" that a driver is either on drugs or alcohol.

You said the driver has to show "clear signs" of use, and thats incorrect.

The company has some training for thier supervisors, so all that is needed is for them to suspect a driver is on drugs, and then that driver is excorted to a testing facility. If they are wrong, there is no recourse for the driver.

After an accident, the company has "THE RIGHT" to send a driver for testing, reguardless of severity if they believe the driver is acting in a manner consistent with possible influence.

Re-read the article relating to random drug testing and you will see that my position is accurate.

Article 35 of the national master agreement, section 3.8 reasonable cause testing.

"upon reasonable cause, UPS will require an employee to be tested for the use of controlled substances.

Reasonable cause is defined as an employees observable action, appearance, or conduct that clearly indicates the need for a fitness for duty medical evaluation.

The employees conduct must be witnessed by at least two (2) supervisors, if available. The withnesses must have recieved training in observing a persons behavior to determine if a medical evaluation is required.

When the supervisor(s) confronts an employee, a Union representative should be made available pursuant to article 4.

If no steward is present, the employee may select another hourly employee to represent them.

Documentation of the emplyees conduct shall be prepared and signed by the witnesses within twenty four hours of the observed behavior or before the test results are released."

This language is pretty clear. The company can send a driver for testing simply by his appearance alone.

"Clear signs" does not appear in the contract and that should not be repeated or applied by any driver.

Behavior and appearance are the two biggest reasons drivers are sent for fitness for duty testing.

Alcoholics will come to work looking like they got into a fight with their iron in the morning. Most alcoholics skin will have a redness that affects the face and neck.

Drug addicts/users will speak quickly or incoherently, or act in manners that appear to be out of normal behavior.

These types of persons are a risk for the company and the public at large so UPS has generous ground to protect each.

I hope this helps your understanding.

Peace.

When I used the words "clear signs" I was simply trying to briefly sumarize the very Contract language you quote. You are creating an issue where there is none. The language you quote backs me up if you read it without reading your own opinions into it. The language even uses the word "clearly", and further states that preferably at least two supervisors must witness the behavior, be previously trained in such evaluation, and document it in writing. Seems clear to me.

Danny, Article 35 is part of the National Master Agreement so it applies consistently throught the national bargaining unit. It's not like some Supplementary matters that vary from place to place. DOT regulations are federal law so they apply consistently across the country as well.

I imagine some package car drivers may voluntarily take a post-accident test if they think it may help their situation. But UPS can't force them unless UPS has "reasonable cause."

 

[kingOFchester]

.

A drug user/seller never stops taking drugs without a treatment program and detoxing. They may hold off for a bit until the "heat" cools down, but it always resurfaces.

.

[link]www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5aSa4tmVNM[/link]
Unless you are Mr. Sheen......I mean "WINNER" what a train wreck

 

[The Other Side]

When I used the words "clear signs" I was simply trying to briefly sumarize the very Contract language you quote. You are creating an issue where there is none. The language you quote backs me up if you read it without reading your own opinions into it. The language even uses the word "clearly", and further states that preferably at least two supervisors must witness the behavior, be previously trained in such evaluation, and document it in writing. Seems clear to me.

Danny, Article 35 is part of the National Master Agreement so it applies consistently throught the national bargaining unit. It's not like some Supplementary matters that vary from place to place. DOT regulations are federal law so they apply consistently across the country as well.

I imagine some package car drivers may voluntarily take a post-accident test if they think it may help their situation. But UPS can't force them unless UPS has "reasonable cause."

Jonfrum,

I understand you might have been trying to convey the same thing in a sense, but when you make a summary, you have to insure you dont use "DEFINED" terms that do not exist. This may lead someone to believe something that isnt contained in the contract.

Lets examine what you said, and I will highlight the "defined" terms that you used that dont exist in our contract.

""Even if a package car driver is involved in a serious accident involving death or injury, UPS has no right to have the driver tested for drugs or alcohol. The accident, as such, isn't a reason for testing. It is only if the driver is displaying clear signs of drug or alcohol use that the driver can be tested under "Reasonable Cause" Testing.""

First one is clear, UPS DOES have the right to test its employees under the fitness for duty standard. The standard is clear, and the policy explained like this:
"Reasonable cause is defined as an employees observable action, appearance, or conduct that clearly indicates the need for a fitness for duty medical evaluation."

Your use of the words "clear signs" is a general term and has nothing to do with severity of an action. Its up to the company operators to make the determination whether or not a fitness for duty examination is necessary.

There is a difference between the use of the words "clear signs" and Clearly Indicates.

Clear signs suggests there are some "markers" that have been established that the company must adhere to, whereas, Clearly indicates , suggests depending on the "caveat" involved, that a driver did something that would prompt a fitness for duty.

When we speak of the contract, we must not READ INTO the contract anything that doesnt exist, or represent something that isnt a defined term.

In the sentence where its uses the word clearly, it does not say that the company must see clear signs of drug or alcohol abuse. It states in the preamble of the sentence areas of concern from appearance to behavior.

To your hypothetical point about an accident, the company CAN take a driver involved in such an accident for a fitness for duty examination based upon the "CONDUCT" portion of the reasonable cause section. A serious accident as you describe involving death would warrant a fitness for duty examination.

The highway patrol in each state would do the same if a serious accident occured involving a UPS driver and death of persons. They would examine the driver to RULE OUT drugs or alcohol.

The company has the same right. Conduct is a loosely applied term. The witnessing portion of the section applies to on sight observations, but on road observations are after the fact.

An accident is considered "conduct" and subject to the provisions of reasonable cause testing.

Its always a better decision to quote the contract as it reads, rather than how you believe it to mean.

The documentation portion is also an after the fact requirement up to 24 hours.

The bottom line remains this, if the company has a reasonable belief based upon the criteria contained in section 3.8 of article 35, they can and will take ANY employee for fitness for duty examinations.

Peace.

 

[JonFrum]

Anyone who cares to can read Article 35 and see for themselves.

 

[menotyou]

I am in the NE. Pg. 92, Sect. 3.8 Reasonable cause testing. My contract indicates that AT LEAST two supervisors better be involved if they want any specimens from me.

 

[ukindoit]

Always be up front then you do not have nothing to hide. If HR finds out then comes to you,thats a whole different ball game

 

[dannyboy]

Ukin

Its not that he is trying to hide anything, its that he is not voluntarily giving information that is not being asked for. Totally different issue. IF they ask, answer truthfully. But in heavens name, why would you ever answer questions before they are asked?

Case in point. Not long ago, there was a driver that had a speeding ticket. He got another one 6 weeks later. He went to court on both. On the first one, the judge asked if he had been to driving school in the last two years, to which he honestly replied no. At the second hearing before another judge, the judge did not ask, as the state offered for the driver to take driving school. So why in the hell would the driver open his mouth and tell the judge that he had just finished driving school two days prior, when he was not asked.

Sometimes it is much better to keep your mouth shut.

d