Last Chance Agreement For Positive Drug Test

Should an employer offer a “fixed choice” or “last chance agreement” to a worker who might otherwise be fired for poor performance or misconduct due to alcohol or drug abuse? A model agreement for a second chance agreement / a last chance agreement will be provided – click here. A week later, Johnson was informed that his return to work would depend on the success of a treatment program and a negative drug test result. The next day, the employer received the result of the drug test johnson had done. It was negative. Yet Johnson remained suspended and continued the treatment. During his suspension, he underwent two more drug tests showing traces of THC (marijuana), which prevented his return to work. The tests also revealed the presence of a benzodiazepine drug for which Johnson had a prescription. Finally, the health care counsellor left Johnson free to return to work. He was ordered by the employer to take a drug test to return to work. The result was positive for another benzodiazepine, valium, for which Johnson had no prescription. He unsuccessfully claimed to have confused a family member`s valium with his own benzodiazepine recipe. Johnson was fired under the LCA. Instead of terminating the employment of an employee who has tested positive for illicit substances or alcohol, this company (employer) offers the employee one last opportunity to agree with compliance with all company policies and practices.

The arbitrator acted at his discretion when he decided johnson should not have been forced to sign the ACL, the court ruled. Indeed, the statements of a senior staff member indicated that the LCA, with its “intransigent” dismissal provision, could have been inappropriate in this area, in accordance with the employer`s policy; If an employee voluntarily admits to violating the drug policy, except for one day of a random test, the practice was that a “second chance agreement” should be offered. Finally, the arbitrator`s criticism that the worker`s claim that he had taken the wrong prescription before obtaining a positive drug test result on his return-to-work test also fell within the arbitrator`s jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal found. This case was different, concluded the 8th circle. The union did not agree to the LCA between Johnson and the employer, and the LCA was the result of a mutual error that Johnson had violated the employer`s drug policy – not the result of ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The parties therefore rightly referred to the arbitrator the question of the just cause for termination and, according to the KNA, the arbitrator duly focused his decision on this issue in the context of the KNA. In the absence of a language within the CBA that defines “just cause,” the arbitrator`s broad power to interpret and apply this notion of CBA justified his decision to pay tribute. An employer may choose, but is not required by the ADA, to offer a “firm choice” or “last chance agreement” to a worker who might otherwise be fired for poor performance or misconduct resulting from alcoholism or drug addiction.

Generally speaking, as part of a “company choice” or “last chance agreement”, an employer undertakes not to bequeath the worker in exchange for a worker`s agreement to treat drug abuse, to renounce any new alcohol or drug use and to avoid further problems in the workplace. . . .

© 2007-2012 Building Owners and Managers Association of California (BOMA Cal)