Laserfiche WebLink
243 <br /> <br />the recommendations: 1) expand the fitness-for-duty policy, <br />2) require a pre-employment medical examination for all new <br />employees; 3) require drug testing for selected public <br />safety positions; 4) conduct a supervisory training program; <br />and 5) require substance abuse tests for non-public safety <br />employees when they are suspected of substance abuse. Mr. <br />O'Connell stated that it was proposed that the policy go <br />into effect October. Mr. O'Connell noted that it was felt <br />that the proposed policy would stand up. to legal challenge. <br /> <br /> Mr. Towe questioned how and when a substance abuse test <br />would be~a&ministered. <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell stated that when a supervisor felt there <br />was probable cause, the employee would be observed by a <br />second supervisor and then referred to a physician who <br />could then recommend that the employee be tested. Mr. <br />O'Connell stated that there had been court rulings against <br />requiring drug tests without cause, but that pre-employment <br />tests .had been upheld in court. <br /> <br /> Mr. Barnes questioned what substance abuse policies <br />existed in other localities. <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell replied that most other localities have <br />no substance abuse policy. <br /> <br /> Mr. Barnes stated that he felt the proposed policy <br />balanced employee rights and the City's interests. Mr. <br />Barnes questioned whether impairment would need to be shown <br />to require drug testing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Wiley replied that as related to job performance, <br />impairment would not necessarily have to be shown. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Barnes, Mr. O'Connell <br />stated that the policy did not include parties with whom the <br />City contracts, though the City may require a test in <br />accident situations. <br /> <br /> Mr. Preston Gentry, President of the'Charlottesville <br />Professional Firefighters Association, stated that the <br />Association supported the proposed policy but had concerns <br />with the section which states that employees may be <br />discharged if charged with a substance abuse-related traffic <br />violation. Mr. Gentry stated that there was also concern <br />with the section which states that employees involved in <br />accidents with property damage above $100 or which involved <br />personal injury could be required to be tested. Mr. Gentry <br />stated that he felt all City employees should be subjected <br />to pre-employment substance abuse testing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he felt the proposed policy was <br />the least intrusive to employees and that public safety <br />employees do involve higher risks to each other and the <br />public than most City employees. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that present City regulations allow <br />suspension of an employee for certain legal.charges when <br />they are pending. <br /> Mr. Wiley noted that full grievance rights would remain <br />in effect. Mr. Wiley also pointed out that a criminal <br />chargelmight not result in a conviction, but could result in <br />dismissal of the employee. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he .agreed that the property damage <br />and personal injury limits were too low and could be <br />subject to arbitrary action and requiring testing should <br />probably be related more to repeated accidents or probable <br />cause. <br /> <br />It was agreed that the substance abuse policy would be <br /> <br /> <br />