Reasonable Suspicion. That quantity of proof or evidence that is more than a hunch, but less than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion must be based on specific, objective facts and any rationally derived inferences from those facts about the conduct of an employee. These facts or inferences would lead the reasonable person to suspect that the employee is or has been using drugs while on or off duty.
Reasonable Suspicion. Reasonable suspicion" is a belief based on objective facts sufficient to lead a reasonable person to suspect that an employee is under the influence of drugs or alcohol so that the employee's ability to perform the functions of the job is impaired or that the employee's ability to perform his/her job safely is reduced. For example, any of the following, alone or in combination, may constitute reasonable suspicion:
Reasonable Suspicion. Only reasonable suspicion testing shall occur; when it occurs it will be subject to the terms of this agreement. Reasonable suspicion must be based on specific, contemporaneous, articulable observations at work concerning the appearance, behavior, speech or body odor that the employee may be at work with detectable levels of alcohol (.04 or above), illegal or unauthorized drugs.
Reasonable Suspicion a. Reasonable suspicion to test a Covered Employees for illegal drugs or alcohol will exist when specific, reliable objective facts and circumstances would create a good faith belief in a prudent person that the employee has used a drug or alcohol. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to, the employee’s behavior or appearance while on any SFMTA jobsite, while on SFMTA business or in SFMTA facilities, and recognized and accepted symptoms of intoxication or impairment caused by drugs or alcohol, that are not reasonably explained by other causes such as fatigue, lack of sleep, proper use of prescription drugs, or reaction to noxious fumes or smoke.
Reasonable Suspicion. Where the City has reasonable suspicion to believe that: (a) a member is being affected by the use of alcohol, or consuming or possessing alcohol in violation of this Article (i.e., not in the line of duty); or (b) is abusing prescription drugs; or (c) is possessing (not in the line of duty) or using illegal drugs, the City shall have the right to require the member to submit to alcohol and drug testing as set forth in this Article. Members shall not be subjected to random medical testing involving blood or urine analysis or other similar or related tests for the purpose of discovering possible drug or alcohol abuse, except as specifically provided for in this Article 17.
Reasonable Suspicion. Employees covered by this Agreement may be required to submit a urine specimen for testing for the presence of drugs or a breath sample for the testing of the presence of alcohol: Where there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the employee, when appearing for duty or on the job, is under the influence of, or his/her job performance, is impaired by alcohol or other drugs. Such reasonable suspicion must be based upon objective facts or specific circumstances found to exist that present a reasonable basis to believe that an employee is under the influence of, or is using or abusing, alcohol or drugs. Examples of reasonable suspicion shall include, but are not limited to, slurred speech, disorientation, abnormal conduct or behavior, or involvement in an on-the-job accident resulting in disabling personal injury requiring immediate hospitalization of any person or property damage in excess of $2,000, where the circumstances raise a reasonable suspicion concerning the existence of alcohol or other drug use or abuse by the employee. In addition, such reasonable suspicion must be documented in writing and supported by two witnesses, including the person having such suspicion. The immediate supervisor shall be contacted to confirm a test is warranted based upon the circumstances. Such written documentation must be presented, as soon as possible, to the employee and the department head, who shall maintain such report in the strictest confidence, except that a copy shall be released to any person designated by the affected employee.
Reasonable Suspicion. Where the City has reasonable suspicion to believe that: (a) an employee is being affected by the use of alcohol, or consuming or possessing alcohol in violation of this Article; or (b) is misusing prescription drugs; or (c) is possessing or using illegal drugs, or
Reasonable Suspicion. An apparent state of facts and/or circumstances found to exist upon inquiry by the supervisor, which would induce a reasonably intelligent prudent person to suspect the employee was under the influence of drugs/narcotics.
Reasonable Suspicion. Any employee of the City may be required to undergo testing for drugs and/or alcohol with ‘reasonable suspicion’. ‘Reasonable suspicion’ is defined as cause based on specific and articulated observations concerning the appearance, unusual behavior, speech, breath odor, body symptoms or other reliable indicators that an employee has reported to work or returned to duty with alcohol or drugs present in his/her body. Whenever practicable, the decision to test for ‘reasonable suspicion’ will be made by the employee’s supervisor and confirmed by another supervisory or management employee. To ensure validity, the City requires prompt re-collection for negative dilute reasonable suspicion tests. At the time an employee is tested, the employee shall be informed that the employee shall have the right to Union representative at the time the test results are shared with the employee and at any subsequent interviews regarding violations of the Policy. An employee shall also be told of his/her right to representation at the time test results are shared with the employee and told again at any subsequent interviews regarding violations of the Policy. Random Employees in safety-sensitive positions that require a CDL will be tested for alcohol and illegal drugs on an unannounced, random basis in accordance with DOT regulations. Employees selected must immediately and directly proceed to the collection/testing site upon notification. Random testing for drugs and alcohol will be limited to regular work hours. Return to Duty Employees must submit to testing as set forth in the Consequences of Prohibited Conduct section of this Policy before being permitted to return to work. Employees who test positive in a return to duty test will be subject to discharge. A negative return to duty test is a condition for returning to work. Follow-up Follow up tests will be required when an employee in a CDL or other safety-sensitive position has engaged in prohibited conduct under this Policy. These tests are performed after the employee has been evaluated by an SAP, and has followed the recommended treatment plan. The employee, upon returning to duty, will be subject to a minimum of six (6) unannounced follow-up tests over the first twelve (12) months following the employee’s return to work. The SAP may recommend any number of tests over a period of up to sixty (60) months. Employees who test positive in any follow up test will be subject to discharge. The actual number and frequency of the...
Reasonable Suspicion. “reasonable suspicion” or “reasonable cause” is a belief based upon facts gathered from the totality of the circumstances that would cause a reasonable supervisor or manager to suspect impaired performance or reduced job safety by an employee on the job. Reasonable suspicion is not to be based upon unconfirmed rumors, but shall be based upon “individual observation by an individual of Supervisory or Managerial” rank trained by the District to recognize the symptoms of substance abuse. The Supervisor or Manager is required to take into account other possible explanations for observed behavior, such as illness, lack of sleep, fatigue, and reactions to noxious fumes or smoke. The facts supporting the reasonable suspicion shall be documented and recorded in a manner provided in Attachment I. In determining if reasonable suspicion exists, the supervisor shall consider factors such as, but not limited to, fatigue, lack of sleep, side effects of prescription and/or over the counter medications, reactions to nauseous fumes or smoke, etc., which may explain the behavior of the employee. The involvement of an employee in an accident or on- the-job injury shall not, standing alone, constitute the reasonable suspicion required by this Policy. The subject employee shall, where possible, be interviewed prior to a reasonable suspicion determination being made. The employee shall have the right to CVPF representation during such interview unless acquiring such representation would delay the interview and possible test for an unreasonable period of time. An unreasonable delay is one which may impact the validity of any test results. The suspected employee shall have the right to CVPF representation during such interview, if requested, and the employee shall be advised of that right by the Fire Chief or designee prior to any such interview. The employee and, if applicable, CVPF representation shall upon request be given copies of all available documentation of reasonable suspicion and have reasonable time to review these documents before the interview commences. During the interview, the Fire Chief or designee shall give the employee the opportunity to explain their condition, and the Fire Chief or designee shall keep a record of the interview. A non-inclusive description of behavior that may constitute evidence of reasonable suspicion is as follows:
