DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PITTSBURGH DISTRICT PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA and LOCAL 2187, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
United States of America
BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL
In the Matter of
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOCAL 2187, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
Case No. 02 FSIP 156
DECISION AND ORDER
The Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Employer) and Local 2187, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Union) filed a joint request for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) to consider a negotiation impasse under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7119.
Following an investigation of the request for assistance, which concerns the implementation of a random drug testing program, the Panel determined that the dispute should be resolved through single written submissions from the parties. After receiving their submissions, the Panel would take whatever action it deemed appropriate to resolve the impasse, which could include the issuance of a Decision and Order. Written submissions were made pursuant to this procedure, and the Panel has now considered the entire record.
The Pittsburgh District is part of the
Lakes and Rivers Division (LRD) of the Corps of Engineers.(1) It provides
infrastructure support, performs overseas flood control projects, and maintains
dams and reservoirs. The Union represents a bargaining unit consisting of
approximately 570 Wage Grade employees who work in such positions as lock and
dam operator, equipment mechanic, equipment mechanic supervisor, and flood
control operator.(2) The parties’ collective bargaining agreement is effective
through May 2004.
ISSUE AT IMPASSE
The parties disagree over whether the drug
testing program should use a single or split sample collection method.(3)
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. The Employer’s Position
The Employer proposes to use the single sample collection method, "the standard model for drug testing" outlined in DHHS regulations. Because DHHS has not mandated that the split specimen method be used, it should be assumed that DHHS has determined that single-sample testing "is sufficient to safeguard" employees’ rights.(4) In addition, adoption of the split sample collection procedure would result in added costs. There are approximately 335 employees in TDPs: each specimen collection kit costs $2; and each test of the second specimen (Bottle B) costs $100 per drug. There is no way to predict exactly how much the additional testing would cost the agency.(5)
The Employer argues that the split sample collection method that the Union proposes is unnecessary and provides no "added benefit" to employees. No evidence has been offered that retaining and testing a second urine sample increases the reliability of the test results. The Union also fails to recognize that under the Guidelines, any re-analysis of the sample, be it from Bottle A or Bottle B, will be performed utilizing the same GC/MS test, and that it will only be a confirmatory test. Under the Guidelines, an employee has an opportunity, after a positive test result and before any adverse action is taken, to provide evidence of a valid medical prescription which explains the positive reading. Moreover, if discipline is proposed, the employee may request that the retained single sample be retested as part of his or her defense to disciplinary action, and may also challenge the validity of the laboratory’s procedures. Finally, the single sample collection procedure is consistent with the collection procedure of the six other districts in the Division, and its adoption in the Pittsburgh District would, therefore, "promote uniformity among all employees being tested."
2. The Union’s Position
The Union proposes that a split sample procedure be used. It is "paramount" that the most accurate test procedures be utilized to minimize the possibility of false test results, and thereby reduce the risk that innocent employees will be removed. Such a procedure ensures that when one portion of a urine specimen tests positive for an illegal substance, the second portion of the same specimen would be subject to a confirmatory test. The Employer’s assertion that the split sample procedure would be too costly is exaggerated; currently, only three job classifications are included in the TDPs. Moreover, the split sample procedure will actually save money; the costs associated with the removal or rehabilitation of employees who test positive is far greater than the cost of an additional specimen test. The procedure adopted by other districts in the LRD is not relevant because the Guidelines expressly authorize agencies to use either collection method.
Alternatively, the Union proposes to withdraw its split sample collection proposal if the management and District employees responsible for implementing and administering t