reasonable suspicion drug testing
My boyfriend refused a drug test because he feels harassed by his supervisors. A supervisor claimed he should have to take a drug test because he was in the vacinity of a bathroom that smelled like marijuana. Many employees have access to this bathroom and he was not seen coming in or out. The supervisor also never stated he smelled it on his person. He never thought he would be fired, that is why he refused. The union stood by and did nothing when he was fired. What rights were violated when the supervisor claimed he was smoking pot, yet has no evidence to prove otherwise. Possible is not probable in our opinion. We reside in Iowa, which laws state reasonable suspicion to be things such as visual impairment, seeing consumption, or causing an accident, etc. This supervisor did not get a second supervisor to observe the smell and made the comment that if he knew he was my father's (also another supervisor's son in law) he would not have done anything. We need all the help we can get since the union sat back and did nothing to defend him when he should not have been put in the position of taking a drug test to begin with.
Re: reasonable suspicion drug testing
You didn't say what sort of job this person has or what the work rules were, and that is important.
Many workplaces and occupations now have random drug testing and can require random drug testing as a condition of employment. In such cases a refusal often constitutes sufficient cause to be terminated.
I think your argument is that they had no reason to require this person to submit to a random drug test. Again, without a knowledge of the person's occupation and the applicable rules, employee rules and the union contract in hand to review, it's really impossible to give an informed opinion on the case at this time.
Did this person file a grievance?
