Arbitrability

Facts:

The City of Texas City, Texas, and the International Association of Firefighters reached an agreement on a drug-testing policy for firefighters. According to the policy, the city may perform drug or alcohol testing:

1. On any employee who manifests "reasonable belief" behavior
2. On any employee who has been involved in a work-related accident that involves an injury to himself or to another while operating a vehicle or motor-driven or heavy equipment
3. On a random basis of any employee who performs duties in a safety-sensitive position
4. On any employee who is subject to drug or alcohol testing pursuant to federal or state rules, regulations, or laws

During a dispatch to an alarm in a local apartment complex, Engine Driver B scraped an unoccupied parked automobile. B immediately stopped and inspected the damage, which was slight. Captain W called the police department and reported the incident. Both B and W located the individual who owned the automobile and reported to her what had happened. The owner of the automobile did not file a claim, and there was no liability to the city.

After returning to the station, Captain W reviewed the testing requirements of the Drug and Alcohol Policy. Captain W, who had worked most of the shift with Driver B, concluded that there was no cause or reason to require B to submit to a drug test. There was no reasonable belief of any impairment of B, and no injury had occurred in the accident.

Later, Captain W was contacted by telephone by Fire Chief G, who ordered that B go immediately to a drug-testing facility and submit to a drug test. Chief G had no firsthand knowledge or information of the incident or of B's work performance. B and W protested, but B submitted to a urine test, which was negative.

At the arbitration hearing, the union argued that the standards to be used to require a firefighter to submit to a drug test are clear and unambiguous and that Chief G had exceeded his jurisdiction by ignoring these standards and requiring B to submit to a drug test against the opinion of the firefighter's immediate supervisor.

The city's position was that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction over this dispute because of a management rights clause that gives the city the right to make rules and regulations governing conduct and safety. The city argued that the language of the drug-testing policy was clear; the city has the right to require a firefighter to undergo a drug test after any incident.

Decision:

Arbitrator A. Dale Allen Jr. ruled that Chief G had no basis for ordering B to submit to a drug test and that G did not properly interpret and apply the drug-testing policy. The city and Chief G were ordered to adhere to the terms of the drug-testing policy in the future.[1]

Questions for Discussion

Do you agree with the arbitrator's decision? Why or why not?