Iii. Drug Abuse in the Workplace: Arbitration in the Context of a National Solution of Decriminalization

minutes to use the toilet! The arbitrator was, I think, as dumbfounded as I was and did not credit that preposterous, obviously fabricated story. My point is that no arbitrator should credit ridiculous testimony, testimony that would never otherwise be credited, just because it arises within the context of a highly emotional drug case. Finally, I would urge that you keep reminding yourselves of what we all know is at issue in most drug-testing cases: the very narrow question of whether or not there is just cause to discipline or discharge an employee. Your obligation as arbitrators is to tell the parties that the contract does or does not permit the action in question, and then to explain why. Ultimately, companies and unions are going to have to solve the drug-testing problem, as they see fit, at the bargaining table. What may be agreed upon in negotiations may not have all the components of a perfect drug-testing program. It may not meet my standards; it may not meet yours. But with all due respect, giving the parties your personal views on what they should have done or might have done to better address the problem is likely to complicate further an already complex area. After much thought, I decided that my final words to you should be no different from my final words to the employer groups I often speak to on this subject: Common sense goes a long way in this area. In most cases, doing the fair thing, doing the reasonable thing, taking into account all the relevant circumstances will probably serve all concerned quite well.