Northeastern Retail Lumber Association

A. After a random selection, the employee is returned to the pool immediately and can be chosen again, as many as four times during a calendar year.

Q. Must all drivers who do not work for an extended period of time (such as layoffs over the winter or summer months) be pre-employment drug tested each season when they return to work?
A. If the driver is considered to be an employee of the company during the extended (layoff) period, a pre-employment test would not be required so long as the driver has been included in the company’s random testing program during the layoff period. However, if the driver was not considered to be an employee of the company at any point during the layoff period, or was not covered by a program, or was not covered for more than 30 days, then a pre-employment test would be required.

Q. How and to whom are copies of drug testing custody and control forms distributed?
A. The historically acceptable procedures for handling the custody and control form have been as follows: Parts 1, 2, and 3 must accompany the urine specimen in a sealed shipping container to the laboratory; Part 3 (Split Specimen) must be retained by the laboratory in case the split specimen must be sent to a second laboratory; Part 4 must be sent from the collection site directly to the physician (MRO), Part 5 is given to the donor at the collection site; Part 6 is retained by the collection site personnel; and Part 7 is provided to the employer representative.

Q. How often does a CDL driver need to have a physical examination?
A. Every two years.

Q. What is to be done if a previous employer does not make the records for a CDL driver available in spite of the employer’s request along with the driver’s written consent?
A. Employers must make a reasonable, good faith effort to obtain the information. If a previous employer refuses to release the information pursuant to the new employer’s and driver’s request, the new employer should note the attempt to obtain the information.

Q. May an employer combine DOT and non-DOT random pools?
A. No. While it would seem to be advantageous for an employer to combine all employees into one random testing pool, this move could dilute the number of DOT-covered employees who would actually be tested. For example, in a pool that is comprised of 50 DOT-covered employees and 50 non-DOT-covered employees, and assuming a testing rate of 50%, it is possible that no DOT-covered employees would be tested. The likelihood of this happening, albeit remote, is possible under a truly random scheme. On the other hand, keeping the above two classes of employees in a separate pool assures that at least 25 of the tests conducted by the company will be conducted on DOT-covered employees. It is this assurance that ultimately mandates that DOT-covered employees remain in separate random pools.

Q. Under what circumstances must an employee be observed while submitting a urine sample? Under what circumstances is observation an optional choice of the employer?
A. A direct-observation collection is mandatory only when the collection site person observes behavior clearly indicating an attempt to tamper or when the specimen temperature is outside the normal range and an oral body temperature reading is refused or is inconsistent with the specimen temperature.
The employer has the discretion to require the employee to provide a specimen under direct-observation collection procedures for the return-to-duty test and any subsequent follow-up tests.

Q. In a post-accident situation requiring both a company test and a DOT test, which should be conducted first?
A. In a post-accident situation in which drug/alcohol testing is required under company authority or policy, and DOT-mandated tests are required, the DOT tests must be conducted first.

Q. May a reasonable suspicion alcohol test be based upon any information or observations of alcohol use or possession, other than a supervisor’s actual knowledge?
A. No. Information conveyed by third parties of a driver’s alcohol use may not be the only determining factor used to conduct a reasonable suspicion test. A reasonable suspicion test may only be conducted when a trained supervisor has observed specific, contemporaneous, articulable appearance, speech, body odor, or behavior indicators of alcohol use.

Q. Must a Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) evaluation be conducted in person or may it be conducted telephonically?
A. Both the initial and follow-up SAP evaluations are clinical processes that must be conducted face-to-face. Body language and appearance offer important physical cues vital to the evaluation process. Tremors, needle marks, dilated pupils, exaggerated movements, yellow eyes, glazed or bloodshot eyes, lack of eye contact, a physical slowdown or hyperactivity, appearance, posture, carriage and ability to communicate in person are vital components that cannot be determined telephonically. In-person sessions carry with them the added advantage of the SAP’s being able to provide immediate attention to individuals who may be a danger to themselves or others.

Q. Are employers required to provide intervention and treatment for drivers who have a substance abuse problem or only refer drivers to be evaluated by a SAP?
A. An employer who wants to continue to use or hire a driver who has violated the prohibitions in subpart B in the past must ensure that a driver has complied with any SAP’s recommended treatment prior to the driver returning to safety-sensitive functions. However, employers must only refer to an SAP drivers who have tested positive for controlled substances, tested 0.04 or greater alcohol concentration, or have violated other prohibitions in subpart B.

Q. Who is responsible for reimbursing the SAP for services rendered? Who is responsible for paying for follow-up testing recommended by the SAP?
A. The DOT rules do not affix responsibility for payment for SAP services upon any single party. The DOT has left discussions regarding payment to employer policies and to labor-management agreements. Therefore, in some instances, this issue has become part of labor-management negotiations.
Some employers have hired or contracted staff for the purpose of providing SAP services. For some employees, especially those who have been released following a violation, payment for SAP services will become their responsibility. In any case, the SAP should be suitable to the employer who chooses to return the employee to safety-sensitive functions. Employer policies should address this payment issue.
Regarding follow-up testing recommended by the SAP, when an employer decides to return the employee to safety-sensitive duty, the employer is essentially determining that the costs associated with hiring and training a new employee exceeds the costs associated with conducting follow-up testing of the returning employee. In any case, whether the employer pays or the employee pays, if the employee returns to performance of safety-sensitive functions, the employer must ensure that follow-up testing occurs as required. The employer will be held accountable if the follow-up testing plan is not followed.

Q. Can a SAP recommend that six follow-up tests be conducted in less than six months and then be suspended after all six are conducted?
A. Follow-up testing must be conducted a minimum of six times during the first twelve months following the employee’s return to safety-sensitive functions. The intent of this requirement is that testing be spread throughout the twelve month period and not be grouped into a shorter interval. When the SAP believes that the employee needs to be tested more frequently during the first months after returning to duty, the SAP may recommend more than the minimum six tests or can direct the employer to conduct more of the six tests during the first months rather than toward the latter months of the year.

member services