Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—Mechanic’s termination for second drug policy violation upheld, (Jun 20, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

The question, said the arbitrator, was whether the actions of the parties should be interpreted as an agreement to deviate from contract requirements.

A mechanic’s termination for a second violation of his public transportation operator employer’s drug and alcohol policy was upheld after an arbitrator found that the union’s procedural objections did not overcome the employer’s adherence to federally mandated testing protocols and consistent disciplinary standards. Although the arbitrator criticized the employer’s failure to raise arbitrability objections before the hearing, he found the verified medical review findings rendered the termination just and merited (Metro Transit and Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1005 (Altman, Arb. Dec. 2, 2024)).

Suspension. The employee was initially suspended for failing to provide a urine sample during a March 2023 random drug test. The arbitrator upheld the employer’s interpretation that the failure constituted a “refusal to test,” consistent with 49 C.F.R. § 40.193 and the employer’s FTA Drug and Alcohol Policy. The arbitrator found that the employee had been given ample opportunity to produce a sufficient specimen, including consumption of over 40 ounces of fluid, and later completed a shy bladder evaluation the same day.

The union argued that the employer had failed to follow required procedures by not notifying the employee of his right to be evaluated by a physician with expertise in his specific medical conditions and by failing to consult with the MRO before assigning a physician. It contended that this deprived the employee of due process. The arbitrator, however, determined that both the evaluating physician and the MRO—who had reviewed additional medical documents—consistently concluded there was no medical condition that, with a high degree of probability, prevented the employee from providing a sample.

Termination. The employee was terminated after testing positive for cocaine in September 2023, in a follow-up test conducted under the return-to-work agreement. The union asserted that the test result was unreliable and offered a negative hair follicle test conducted weeks later. The arbitrator rejected this evidence as inadmissible under DOT regulations and concluded that the positive test, confirmed by split-sample testing and verified by the MRO, could not be disregarded.

While the arbitrator acknowledged that the employer waited until the hearing to raise timeliness objections regarding the grievance procedure, he found that both parties had implicitly agreed to proceed to arbitration. He concluded that the termination was justified based on the employee’s prior violation, the governing policy, and DOT regulations that prohibit arbitrators from overturning MRO determinations.

Attorneys: Margaret L. Penland for Metro Transit. Tim Louris for Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1005.

Companies: Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1005; Metro Transit

Cases: Labor Arbitration PublicEmployees Safety Discharge Procedure