Opinion ID: 3010300
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Cause Requirement

Text: Exxon argues that in interpreting the company drug policy's requirement that cause support a drug test, the Chairman impermissibly inserted a clear and convincing evidence of ownership standard, and employed an ex post analysis to assess whether cause existed. The Union responds that the quantum of proof required in such cases is unsettled, but that where the offense charged is one that is punishable by law, such as drug possession, arbitrators have commonly held employers to a clear and convincing or beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Brief of Appellee at 35 (citing Frank Elkouri & Edna Asper Elkouri, How Arbitration Works 661-63 (4th ed. 1985)). It further maintains that neither the parties' contract nor the company's Drug and Alcohol Policy defined cause, identified a standard of proof to be employed, or specified at what point in time cause must exist; therefore, these determinations were within the province of the arbitrator. We agree. The parties bargained for an arbitrator to interpret their contract. The Exxon Drug and Alcohol Policy states: [t]he Company . . . has the right to require employees to submit to medical evaluation or alcohol and drug testing where cause exists to suspect alcohol or drug misuse. App. at 44 (emphasis added). The term cause is ambiguous. Where a contractual ambiguity exists it is within the province of the arbitrator to interpret the ambiguous phrase. Suburban Transit Corp., 51 F.3d at 380-81. Although the Chairman's opinion may not be a model of clarity, it is evident that he ultimately concluded that Exxon lacked cause to require Cash to submit to a drug test. That Exxon now disagrees with that conclusion is not a ground for vacating his decision. Exxon could have defined cause more specifically in its policy, or could have bargained with the union to remove cases arising under its drug policy from the jurisdiction of arbitrators altogether. It did not, and therefore may not now be heard to complain that the arbitrator lacked authority to make determinations that the company policy and the parties' agreement left open for an arbitrator's judgment.