of drug testing policy and procedures in place (Drug tests reducea, 2000). Such procedures are increasingly popular because they are perceived to significantly reduce workplace injuries and accidents, while also helping companies to identify employees who may be at-risk for such problems ("Drug tests reduce," 2000).
While increased testing and screening of employees for drug and/or alcohol abuse problems has gained in acceptance and popularity, this strategy of accident reduction (and liability protection) has not been unchallenged. Crow, et al. (1992), almost ten years ago, noted that as drug and alcohol testing has increased in volume and frequency, labor arbitrators have been called in more and more frequently to address grievances filed by workers and to resolve conflicts between workers and employers that center on suspected or proven drug and alcohol use.
According to Redel and Abbey (1993), drug testing is considered by arbitrators and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to be a mandatory subject of bargaining between employee representatives and employers. The substantive issues raised by testing (e.g., right to privacy and off-duty behavior) are, however, less agreed upon. Some claim that drug tests are unreliable and potentially unfair to workers; others argue that off-duty use of drugs (or excessive alcohol intake) has no effect n many jobs. Still others contend that such tests are needed to reduce injuries and accidents, maintain quality of workplace environments and of work output, and to protect employer and workers alike from accident-related liability. Regardless of the perspective on such processes that one takes, the reality is that for labor arbitrators, workplace drug and alcohol testing and disputes or grievances centered on the results of such tests are major focus of activity (Redel & Abbey, 1993).
Given this general background, it is the purpose of this study to examine the literature to asse...