A healthcare union has scored a victory against an Ohio hospital that suspended one of its attendants after he tested positive for cannabis, with a federal judge ruling that an arbitration decision upending the disciplinary action was totally valid.
OG Article: here
View our Fair Use Policy: here
Watch the Commentary Here
U.S. District Judge Donald C. Nugent said that Lutheran Hospital must comply with the arbitrator's decision to reinstate the employee and make him "whole" in regard to lost pay and benefits, according to the order issued Thursday.
While the worker at the center of the litigation may have tested positive for marijuana metabolites, Lutheran Hospital failed to put forward sufficient evidence during arbitration to show he was actually under the influence or in possession of marijuana while on the job, the arbitrator determined, according to the court record.
This arbitration finding is "grounded" in the collective bargaining agreement made between Lutheran Hospital and the worker's union, Service Employees International Union Local 1199, the judge said. Therefore, there is no reason to overturn it.
"The [arbitration] award offers multiple legally plausible rationale for overturning [the worker's] disciplinary action based on violations of the collective bargaining agreement," the judge said.
The hospital initiated the litigation against the union in February in an effort to upend a Dec. 11 arbitration finding in favor of the worker. The employee, a hospital porter, was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
The hospital claimed that arbitrator Joseph Gardner's decision leaned on Ohio's marijuana decriminalization law. But the hospital argued that Gardner ignored a provision in the state statute that gives employers the right to discipline workers who violate company drug policy.
But Judge Nugent said the hospital's argument "is not a fair reading of the arbitrator's opinion."
"The arbitrator notes that on November 7, 2023, between the hearing date and the deadline for final briefs, 'the citizens of Ohio voted to legalize possession of marijuana by means of a citizen initiated statute, dubbed the Adult Use Law, codified as Ohio Revised Code §3780,'" the judge said, quoting the award. "He did not, however, reference or allude to any part of the statute as a basis for his decision, nor could he have. The Adult Use Law has no relevance to the question at hand beyond establishing context."
Rather, the arbitrator looked to the collective bargaining agreement to determine that the hospital should not have forced the worker to take a random drug test in the first place, the judge said.
The CBA requires the hospital to have "reasonable cause to suspect" an employee of using a prohibited substance before showing up to work or while on the job, the arbitrator award said, according to the court's opinion. But, during arbitration, the hospital couldn't point to any actions or conduct that would have created such a suspicion.
While the hospital argued that it was its policy to issue random drug tests, this policy wasn't actually within the collective bargaining agreement, which means it "at least arguably" contradicts the CBA, the judge said.
"These findings and the ultimate award are clearly tethered by the CBA's reasonable suspicion standard for imposing drug testing," the judge said. "Therefore, under an arguable construction standard, the award must be upheld."
Finally, the judge said he would not overturn the arbitrator's finding that the hospital failed to make its case for impairment.
The misconduct notice the hospital hit the worker with said "possession/consumption or being under the influence of prohibited substance" while on hospital property. But the hospital didn't put forward any evidence of possession or consumption except for the positive drug test that showed metabolites, the court record said. But this substance in the body doesn't actually prove possession or consumption at the time of the test.
"There was no evidence that a positive test for metabolite signifies current or recent impairment, or equates to a recent use (during the prohibited time frame) of marijuana," the judge said. "There is not even evidence that someone has to reach a level of actual impairment to produce these metabolites. There was also no evidence that marijuana metabolite has any effect on a person's mental, emotional, or physical state."
Comments