Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Mike DeAgro's experience co-founding a nonprofit advocacy organization lead to a career in the legal field? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more


Envision Healthcare

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

Labor Talk Blog: Terminated Employee Entitled to Union Representation Prior to Taking Reasonable Suspicion Drug Test

Publications

September 22, 2014

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), in agreeing with an administrative law judge's (ALJ) April 2013 ruling, has held that suspending and discharging a union member for refusing a drug and alcohol test after the employee demanded union representation is a direct violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

In Ralphs Grocery Co., 361 NLRB No. 9 (2014), coworkers observed the employee displaying unusual behavior, such as slurring his words and having difficulty operating the computer. Based on these observations, the employee was ordered to submit to a drug and alcohol test. The employee requested a union representative, but was told that he did not have this right. The employee attempted to contact a union representative or alternate steward regardless, but was unable to reach anyone. The employee again refused to submit to the test, despite warnings that his refusal would lead to discharge under Ralphs Grocery Company's (Ralphs) drug/alcohol testing policy, and he was ultimately terminated.

Ralphs insisted that the employee's refusal to submit to the testing was insubordinate and amounted to an automatic positive test result under its drug/alcohol testing policy, and this was a complete defense in the case. Ralphs also argued that it was not required to postpone its investigation because the employee could not contact a representative.

Both the NLRB and the ALJ held that the drug and alcohol test trigger the employee's Weingarten rights, which were established by a 1975 U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing employees to insist on having a union representative present for any investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes could lead to disciplinary action. The NLRB and the ALJ determined that the employee's discharge was a direct result of his invocation of his Weingarten rights, and not because Ralphs believed the employee to be intoxicated.

While employers may institute policies calling for an employee's discharge for refusing to submit to a drug/alcohol test, this decision underscores the importance of recognizing an employee's attempt at exercising his/her union rights. Managers also should make record of any observed behavior indicating intoxication or illegal drug use as a means to support any actions in the wake of an unfair labor practice claim.

For more Labor and Employment information, visit www.BassBerryLaborTalk.com.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.