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.
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.There are no RANDOM DRUG TESTS on package car drivers.
There are places where we deliver, and to deliver to them, you have to have regular testing done, but only for those customers.
d
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.
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.Ya'll don't have serious accident language requiring drug testing?
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.
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."
[link]www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5aSa4tmVNM[/link].
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.
.
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.