Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council questions whether city followed accident and drug-testing rules after employee crash
Summary
Council members pressed administration over whether a city employee's crash and subsequent drug screening followed written policy, while the employee asked that the matter be handled publicly; HR said testing is required but the code sets no time limit and the mayor will decide discipline pending results.
At a City of Gonzales council meeting, council members debated whether city protocol was followed after a city employee crashed a city vehicle and later submitted to drug testing. The employee, identified in the meeting as Mr. Wade, told the council he wanted the matter handled in public and asked to waive an executive session, saying, "I'm the employee and I want this done publicly."
The discussion centered on whether a specific city policy required immediate notification and supervisor transport for post-accident drug testing. Councilman Turner read language from city code that he said requires certain employees involved in on-the-job accidents to "participate in the substance abuse screening procedure" and that an employee "shall be driven by another employee and shall not drive themselves." That passage prompted members to ask whether the rule applied to salaried or supervisory personnel in this case.
HR Director Janice told the council the city's policy requires testing after an on-the-job accident but does not specify a time limit. "Our policy does not state in this reference code, it does not state a time limit that the employee has to be drug tested," she said, adding that in the incident at issue the employee reported the accident the next morning and went for testing that morning. Chief Jackson described the police department's practice, saying supervisors are notified and would normally take an employee for testing and that police would secure evidence and investigate serious accidents. He also confirmed officers responded to this complaint and that a summons was issued.
Council members repeatedly pressed for a citation of the controlling rule and for consistent, written policies that apply equally to rank-and-file employees and to administrators. One council member urged that whatever discipline is recommended "apply to you" as it would to any other employee. City Attorney Davis explained the employee remains covered by the city's self-insured liability policy regardless of whether the position was separately approved by council. He and other speakers noted that code section 2-285 provides an employee the right to petition the council for rehearing if administration imposes an adverse action based on testing results.
HR said no disciplinary action has been taken by the administration yet and that the mayor and HR will meet after test results are received to determine any action. Several council members said they expect fairness and consistency in applying discipline and urged the mayor to consult the council as appropriate; one council member said an aggrieved employee has the right under the code to appeal to the council. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn; no formal disciplinary decision was made at the session.
