Should the supervisor arrange for a Federal reasonable suspicion drug test to be conducted?
A. As with question 1, the supervisor cannot order a reasonable suspicion drug test to be conducted since 219.300(a)(2) requires the supervisor’s suspicion to be based on observations of the engineer exhibiting signs and symptoms of illegal drug use. Similarly, to prove a violation of section 219.101(a)(1) (prohibited on-duty use or possession of a controlled substance(s)), the railroad need only prove that there was cocaine in the crack pipe (since possession of drug paraphernalia is not in itself a violation) and that the crack pipe was in the possession of the engineer. While the possession of a crack pipe does not in itself violate FRA regulatioins, the railroad should, at a minimum, refer the engineer to an Employee Assistance Professional to determine if the engineer has an active substance abuse problem. Q-15. In the above scenarios, could the railroad test the engineer under company policy? A. In both scenarios, Part 219 does not prohibit the railroad from conducting company te
Related Questions
- Can a driver be sent for a reasonable suspicion alcohol test if he was not witnessed by a properly trained supervisor?
- How do I know whether an alcohol or drug test is being conducted under Federal or company authority?
- Should the supervisor arrange for a Federal reasonable suspicion drug test to be conducted?
