Potential Driver Left Drug Test....Now What!

Along the same lines, I got called in for a random last week. When I got to the testing center, the door was locked and a nurse came out and said they would have to check my temp before I could enter. Said if I had a temp I wouldn’t be allowed entry.
Now the question is, if I did have a temp and denied entry, could that be construed as leaving the testing station, or not getting tested when you were sent?

 

That's a legit question, but I think you should start a new thread on it so it isn't eclipsed by the original subject.

 

I doubt it, they call the shots.

 

No, it would not be leaving as it doesn't count until you enter a "secure" location. Usually the building where the samples are taken at. As for not being able to test at all, there was some guidance put forth, but I'm not sure if it's still in force. Basically it said try again later....

 

Nothing "perfectly reasonable" at all in your post. When you piss in the cup, you aren't allowed to do anything until you hand them the cup. Not even flush the toilet, much less "clean up". You piss in the cup, and hand it to them. Then they tell you to wash your hands and flush the toilet. Have you ever even had a piss test?

You really need to stop putting so much energy into being wrong all the time.

Edit: Not to mention the fact that we have this thing called HVAC that is pretty handy at making cold rooms warm.

 

It might be worth a try, The people at the testing facility and everyone else involved in this would probably get a good laugh out of it.
I'm sure they've heard all that before and have tools in place to deal with that particular excuse.

 

Went through this on our last round of random tests, had two guy with temperatures rejected by concentra and the, MRO cancelled both out.

 

If they are "random tests", then those drivers are already employees- and the MRO still only "cancelled" them and did not report them as "attempted substitutions" or "refusals"- if I understand your post correctly.

That is not only the correct thing to do in the situation of testers who are already employees, but especially so with pre-employment testers.

In order for the MRO to report "sample substitution", they have to witness it after re-testing and requiring the tester be in their presence; or, the tester has to admit to the staff that they tried to switch out their sample. Without either of those two things, a simple "below temperature" result does NOT automatically become a "sample substitution" report.

The issue is: leaving before testing is completed. The burden on the driver to complete the testing is different depending on whether he/she is employed already by the employer requesting the test OR if there is an explicit verbal/written offer of employment contingent on the drug screening.

Just because an employer sends someone to a drug screen and says: "We will run a background check AND send you for the drug screen. IF everything checks out, and insurance approves you, you're good to go"- THAT is not an offer of employment "contingent on the drug screen".

If the insurance already approved the driver, the background check came back satisfactory, and the last thing left to do was DOT pre-employment drug screening- then the employer has to say: "If your drug screen is good, then you are hired". That is a contingent offer based on the drug screen and the driver not completing the testing or leaving before the testing is completed, can be reported as a "refusal".

All of those steps were not reported by the original poster of the question in this thread. So, no one on the thread could have known whether it was an actual "refusal" according to the regs or not- without those details.

It's a good thing that MROs aren't as gung-ho about accusing drivers of "drug addiction" and "attempted sample substitution" like the people in this thread.

Comments clearly demonstrated a lack of concern for ruining a driver's future in the industry, even if that was all based on assumptions, ZERO proof of wrongdoing and not consistent with what regulations outline.

Just glad none of these guys are in charge of any testing facilities.

 

I was at a testing facility in California a few years ago and that clinic was extremely strict about leaving, even though it was a pre-employment test. There was a young lady there for the same thing and they told her flat-out- "If you leave, then we will report it as a refusal".

She absolutely could not produce enough urine. She tried once or twice but couldn't produce enough for the test.

I mean, she was all stressed.

If I remember correctly, they even set a time limit for her, like 2 hours or something.

So, some facilities are beyond strict. Others are not so strict. Given that each facility, or chain of them, has their own training protocols and differing levels of knowledge of the regulations, then I'm sure they're a lot like the facilities that conduct DOT medical exams. Some are very strict and some employers insist their drivers go to them, even if they already have medical certs. And other facilities are not so strict and pretty much approve everyone with a pulse that pays in full before the exam.

All I'm saying is that I've sat there and watched someone get treated like a criminal and legitimately not be able to urinate. I got in and out while she was still there. I wouldn't blame her if she said "screw it" and eventually took off after not being able to fill the sample holder to the mark.

You guys broke out the pitchforks and torches too quickly on this one.