no, I did not admit to doing drugs in the meeting, I admitted to taking a prescription pain pill, which I have a valid prescription for. I'm sure my test will be positive for marijuana. They asked me if I had a problem with herion, I told them no. I don't have a problem with herion, I've never done herion, never seen herion, don't know anyone that does herion. I made a joke in reference to herion and my helper that day told management. That led to me being interrogated and I refused help when they asked because like I said, I don't need help for a drug I've never even seen!!!! Once I realized they were going to test me, I asked to go into a treatment program because I knew I would be positive for weed. They would not allow it because they said I had already refused help. I understand the language of the contract, I understand that asking for help once a test is imminent is too late. My argument is that the test was unwarranted because of the contract language. Contract says I must be observed by 2 supervisors to have to submit to a reasonable suspicion test. So company wants to adhere to contract language in regards to me asking for help after it's too late but disregard the language about the protocol for reasonable suspicion.
no, I did not admit to doing drugs in the meeting, I admitted to taking a prescription pain pill, which I have a valid prescription for. I'm sure my test will be positive for marijuana. They asked me if I had a problem with herion, I told them no. I don't have a problem with herion, I've never done herion, never seen herion, don't know anyone that does herion. I made a joke in reference to herion and my helper that day told management. That led to me being interrogated and I refused help when they asked because like I said, I don't need help for a drug I've never even seen!!!! Once I realized they were going to test me, I asked to go into a treatment program because I knew I would be positive for weed. They would not allow it because they said I had already refused help. I understand the language of the contract, I understand that asking for help once a test is imminent is too late. My argument is that the test was unwarranted because of the contract language. Contract says I must be observed by 2 supervisors to have to submit to a reasonable suspicion test. So company wants to adhere to contract language in regards to me asking for help after it's too late but disregard the language about the protocol for reasonable suspicion.
I was thinking this through, at some in this meeting or conversations, did you talk to two supervisors , not necessarily in the same meeting or place? If so, you might have had two supervisors observe you.
I got this off the net : I cut and paste the appropriate portions:
What do you do if you suspect an employee is under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work? This guide will walk you through the steps management should take to properly execute and document situations under a drug and alcohol testing policy. These steps were written with the assumption that your organization has a clearly written drug and alcohol policy that includes drug and alcohol testing for reasonable suspicion. A general policy statement is not enough to permit testing; if your policy does not include testing for reasonable suspicion, you may want to consult your legal counsel to determine if this is a type of policy your organization should implement.
Step 1: Identifying employee
Concerns that an employee is under the influence often come from co-workers or even clients or vendors before it is noticed by a supervisor or manager. You do not want to send an employee for testing based on hearsay or gossip, but you should document the complaint or concerns of co-workers who bring this information forward. Take a few extra minutes to ask what the employee observed, when it was observed and if others witnessed this or commented on this situation. You also want to know if this is something that has happened in the past (a pattern of behavior) or new behavior.
Step 2: Observations by management
Firsthand observation should be made by two members of management. Immediately upon notice of this type of concern, the supervisor or available manager or HR personnel should go to this employee’s work area for firsthand observation. They may be able to observe the employee from afar, but usually they will need to talk with the employee directly to observe any smell of alcohol, eye dilation, slurred speech or other behaviors.
Step 4: Observations by another person
The manager or HR person who performed the initial observation should seek a second member of management or HR to confirm initial suspicions. This second observer should perform his or her own firsthand observation of the employee.
Step 5: Documenting observations
Both observers should clearly
document their observations, including any abnormal behaviors. You want to be as specific as possible in your description, but do not attempt to diagnose the situation. For example, an observation may include:
- Odors (smell of alcohol, body odor or urine).
- Movements (unsteady, fidgety, dizzy).
- Eyes (dilated, constricted, watery, involuntary eye movements).
- Face (flushed, sweating, confused or blank look).
- Speech (slurred, slow, distracted mid-thought, inability to verbalize thoughts).
- Emotions (argumentative, agitated, irritable, drowsy).
- Actions (yawning, twitching).
- Inactions (sleeping, unconscious, no reaction to questions).
Step 6: Assessing situation
After the situation has been clearly documented, you need to assess what you know and observed to determine next steps. If both observers witnessed behaviors that create a suspicion and the documentation supports this, then proceed with step 7. If there is disagreement, you may need to bring in a third party to also observe and help make a determination. You may decide that you don’t have anything that leads you to a reasonable suspicion of use of drugs or alcohol outside of an employee complaint. You do not want to send an employee for testing unless you have documented concerns that support a reasonable suspicion.
Step 7: Meeting with employee
You will want to meet with the employee and a witness; often the meeting includes the employee, supervisor and human resources. During this meeting you should clearly explain what has been observed or documented by management. Then explain that in order to rule out the possibility that the employee is in violation of the company’s drug and alcohol policy, you will be sending the employee for a drug and/or alcohol test. Explaining it in this manner shows the employee that you haven’t jumped to any conclusions, but are just following your procedures; and if the employee is not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work, the test will prove this. If you have not obtained a
drug testing consent previously, you should have a consent form available at this meeting for the employee’s signature.
Me again: So in the course of these meetings, they could have "observed" you, and made note, truthfully or not of some signs, such as eyes dilated, slurred speech, emotions. Very arbitrary but guess who the arbitrators are in this case?: the supervisors.
I am sorry to say but in my opinion, you don't have a case.
