Reasonable Suspicion Sample Clauses

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Where the City has reasonable suspicion of drug use or alcohol abuse, a test may be ordered and the employee may be required to report for testing. Reasonable suspicion exists if the facts and circumstances warrant rational inferences that a person is using and/or is physically or mentally impaired due to being under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. Reasonable suspicion will be based upon the following:
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. 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. The County may require an employee to submit to drug and alcohol testing if the County has a reasonable suspicion that: