Link: http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol38/38-29/index.html
Highlights of items of interest to the Poverty Law Community:
Recent Actions during the 2008 Regular Session of the General Assembly
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol38/38-29/1316.html
DPW - child care - income limits - increase
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol38/38-29/1339.html
DPW - MA - prior authorization (proposed) - radiology services
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol38/38-29/1340.html
Sign language interpreters/transliterators - proposed final rules filed with IRRC
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol38/38-29/1349.html
Friday, July 18, 2008
UC - willful misconduct - drug testing - right to challenge drug test
Cinram Manufacturing, LLC v. UCBR - July 18, 2008 - Commonwealth Court - unreported memorandum decision
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/2051CD07_7-18-08.pdf
The court upheld the Board decision that the employer had not proved willful misconduct, despite having produced drug test results - to which claimant did not object - showing a positive drug test.
Claimant produced countervailing evidence, including a letter from his doctor detailing how having taken cough medicine and eaten a poppy seed roll could have produced a false positive result. The referee and Board found that claimant's evidence was “credible and more compelling and logical” than that presented by employer and established that the test result was a false positive.
Under Section 402(e.1) of the Law, an employee is ineligible for unemployment compensation in any week in which (a) his unemployment is due to discharge or temporary suspension from work due to failure to submit and/or pass a drug test conducted pursuant to an employer’s established substance abuse policy, and (b) the drug test is not requested or implemented in violation of the law or of a collective bargaining agreement. 43 P.S. § 802(e.1). The employer introduced evidence which could have satisfied all requirements of Section 402(e.1) had it been accorded different weight and persuasive value.
However, proof of the elements of sec. 402(e.1) are not, per se, dispositive. Claimant has a right to dispute the accuracy of the drug test. The court rejected as "absurd" the employer's argument that, because it established the required elements listed in sec. 402(e.1), the referee and Board should not have examined the accuracy of the drug test.
The Board found credible Claimant’s evidence that lawful items he had consumed caused his drug test to produce a false positive result. While Employer interprets this as placing an additional burden on employers, it is merely the Board serving in its capacity as fact-finder. In unemployment compensation cases, the Board serves as final fact-finder and resolves any conflicts in evidence or credibility of witnesses.
The Board did not ignore the the drug test. Rather, it was given "probative value." UGI Utilities, Inc. v. UCBR, 851 A.2d 240, 252 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). The Board considered the positive test result, but accorded it no credibility, instead accepting substantial evidence which impugned its reliability. The Board clearly concluded that Claimant rebutted the positive test results with credible evidence that consumption of poppy seed roll and over-the-counter medicine resulted in a false positive test. Based on that, the Board concluded that he did not violate employer’s drug policy. "We are not in a position to question the Board’s finding. Thus, there is no reason for us to reverse this decision."
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/2051CD07_7-18-08.pdf
The court upheld the Board decision that the employer had not proved willful misconduct, despite having produced drug test results - to which claimant did not object - showing a positive drug test.
Claimant produced countervailing evidence, including a letter from his doctor detailing how having taken cough medicine and eaten a poppy seed roll could have produced a false positive result. The referee and Board found that claimant's evidence was “credible and more compelling and logical” than that presented by employer and established that the test result was a false positive.
Under Section 402(e.1) of the Law, an employee is ineligible for unemployment compensation in any week in which (a) his unemployment is due to discharge or temporary suspension from work due to failure to submit and/or pass a drug test conducted pursuant to an employer’s established substance abuse policy, and (b) the drug test is not requested or implemented in violation of the law or of a collective bargaining agreement. 43 P.S. § 802(e.1). The employer introduced evidence which could have satisfied all requirements of Section 402(e.1) had it been accorded different weight and persuasive value.
However, proof of the elements of sec. 402(e.1) are not, per se, dispositive. Claimant has a right to dispute the accuracy of the drug test. The court rejected as "absurd" the employer's argument that, because it established the required elements listed in sec. 402(e.1), the referee and Board should not have examined the accuracy of the drug test.
The Board found credible Claimant’s evidence that lawful items he had consumed caused his drug test to produce a false positive result. While Employer interprets this as placing an additional burden on employers, it is merely the Board serving in its capacity as fact-finder. In unemployment compensation cases, the Board serves as final fact-finder and resolves any conflicts in evidence or credibility of witnesses.
The Board did not ignore the the drug test. Rather, it was given "probative value." UGI Utilities, Inc. v. UCBR, 851 A.2d 240, 252 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). The Board considered the positive test result, but accorded it no credibility, instead accepting substantial evidence which impugned its reliability. The Board clearly concluded that Claimant rebutted the positive test results with credible evidence that consumption of poppy seed roll and over-the-counter medicine resulted in a false positive test. Based on that, the Board concluded that he did not violate employer’s drug policy. "We are not in a position to question the Board’s finding. Thus, there is no reason for us to reverse this decision."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)