A union that represents Train and Engine Service Employees on the Union Pacific Railroad Southern Region Rail Conference International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Monday, August 25, 2008

DOT delays mandatory direct observation regulation to November 1

http://www.ble.org/pr/news/newsflash.asp?id=4682

 

 

CLEVELAND, August 24 — The U.S. Department of Transportation is postponing

from August 25 to November 1 a new regulation that would subject employees

to mandatory direct observation during drug tests conducted when a

transportation worker returns to work after a positive drug test and

during follow-up drug tests.

 

The current DOT regulation, which will remain in effect for the time

being, requires direct observation of urine collection only after an

invalid test, and is discretionary during return-to-duty and follow-up

tests.

 

DOT has not delayed implementation of a related requirement that would

subject workers to a "strip search" in those situations when a direct

observation will be made. Section 40.67(i) states as follows:

 

"As the observer, you must request the employee to raise his or her shirt,

blouse, or dress/skirt, as appropriate, above the waist; and lower

clothing and underpants to show you, by turning around, that they do not

have a prosthetic device. After you have determined that the employee does

not have such a device, you may permit the employee to return clothing to

its proper position for observed urination."

 

It is expected that the postponement will be published in the August 25

Federal Register. Also, the DOT will open a 30-day public comment period,

during which time interested parties may comment on whether direct

observation should be mandatory in all return-to-duty and follow-up tests.

 

In mid-August, the BLET along with seven other rail unions and the BNSF

Railway, filed a lawsuit challenging both aspects of the new regulation on

the grounds that they violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches. The

joint petition for review was filed in the United States Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit.

 

 

---

This message was sent by the BLET NewsFlash Service.

To unsubscribe, go to http://www.ble-t.org