 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Law Enforcement Labor Services5/3/2005
ng Act, which provides reliability and fairness safeguards for testing, including standards for laboratories used, the employee's right to explain a positive test, the right to obtain a confirmatory retest, and a limitation on discharge or discipline without a confirmatory retest. Minn. Stat. §§ 181.953. In light of all these considerations, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the county on the Fourth Amendment claim.
DECISION
We conclude that the establishment of a random drug-testing policy under the Workplace Testing Act is an inherent managerial right and not subject to collective bargaining under PELRA. As to the implementation of the policy, the categorization of which positions are "safety sensitive" is so intertwined with the establishment of the policy as to be equivalent to its establishment and not, therefore, subject to collective bargaining. But in other areas not covered by the Workplace Testing Act, the implementation of the policy may be separated from the policy's establishment and thus requires collective bargaining as provided by Minn. Stat. § 181.955, subd. 1 (2004). As to those areas, the county committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to meet and negotiate with the union. Finally, the application of the random drug-testing policy to employees who occupy "safety-sensitive" positions does not violate the employees' Fourth-Amendment rights.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|