Exxon v. Esso Worker's ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    No. 96-2241
    EXXON CORPORATION,
    Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    ESSO WORKERS' UNION, INC.,
    Defendant, Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Selya, Circuit Judge,
    Coffin and Cyr, Senior Circuit Judges.
    Douglas
    B.
    Neagli, with whom Michael J. Liston, Glass, Seigle
    & Liston,  Patrick J. Conlon,  and Joseph T.  Walsh, III were  on
    brief, for appellant.
    Warren M. Davison, Mark A. de Bernardo, Nancy N. Delogu, and
    Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff, Tichy & Mathiason, P.C. on brief for
    Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace, amicus curiae.
    Nathan S. Paven, with whom Paven & Norton were on brief, for
    appellee.
    July 8, 1997
    SELYA, Circuit Judge.  This appeal tests the margins of
    an
    arbitrator's ability to order the reinstatement, into a safety-
    sensitive
    job, of an employee who has failed a reliable drug test.
    After painstaking reflection, we conclude that a well defined and
    dominant
    public policy encourages employers to develop, establish,
    and
    enforce
    programs to prevent their employees from attempting to
    perform  safety-sensitive  work  while  under  the  influence  of
    narcotics
    or
    other
    intoxicants.  Moreover, once an employer has set
    such a program in place, it countermands public policy if  courts
    too readily  rescue employees  who fail  to satisfy  programmatic
    standards from the  predictable consequences of such  violations.
    Hewing to this line, we  refuse to enforce the arbitral award  of
    which plaintiff-appellant Exxon Corporation (Exxon) complains.
    I.  BACKGROUND
    The facts are essentially undisputed.  Exxon operates a
    fuel terminal in Everett, Massachusetts and employs several truck
    drivers to  supply  petroleum to  service stations  and  airports
    throughout New England.  Exxon's nemesis, the Esso Workers' Union
    (the Union),  appellee here,  represents most  of these  drivers.
    Exxon
    and
    the Union entered into a collective bargaining agreement
    (the
    CBA)
    in
    February
    1990.  The CBA establishes inter alia a five-
    step
    employee grievance procedure culminating in final and binding
    arbitration.
    Part
    11
    of
    the
    CBA
    covers employee discipline.  Its first
    section
    provides
    that
    Exxon "shall post a list of offenses which it
    deems serious," and  its second section provides that Exxon  "may
    2
    discharge or  otherwise discipline"  any employee  who commits  a
    posted  offense.   The second  section also  stipulates that  any
    employee
    who
    believes his suspension or discharge is without "just
    cause" may pursue a grievance.
    An
    appendix
    to
    the
    CBA
    catalogs the posted offenses.  The
    list includes the following:
    6.  Alcohol Beverage/Habit-Forming or Illegal
    Drug or Any Dangerous Substance
    a.  Being under the influence of an
    alcoholic  beverage   or  drug   on
    Company time or property.   Testing
    positive on a drug test or  refusal
    to submit to a drug test.
    b.  Bringing onto Company property,
    or possessing, or using on  Company
    time  or   Company   property,   an
    alcoholic  beverage,   illicit   or
    unprescribed controlled  substance,
    or
    any
    dangerous substance which the
    Company  believes  may  impair  the
    employee's  ability   to   properly
    perform  duties   in  a  safe   and
    responsible manner.
    Exxon
    has
    implemented
    a
    comprehensive drug-free workplace
    program (the DFW program), embodied in a formal policy  statement
    and the  aforementioned  list of  posted  offenses.   The  policy
    statement declares in part:
    Exxon Corporation  is  committed to  a  safe,
    healthy,  and productive  workplace  for  all
    employees.   The Corporation recognizes  that
    alcohol, drug,  or other  substance abuse  by
    employees
    will impair their ability to perform
    properly
    and
    will have serious adverse effects
    on
    the
    safety, efficiency, and productivity of
    other
    employees and the Corporation as a whole
    . . . .  Being unfit for work because of  use
    of
    drugs
    or
    alcohol is strictly prohibited and
    is grounds for termination of employment.
    3
    Exxon's program  is carefully tailored to  meet the goals of  the
    Drug-Free
    Workplace
    Act
    of 1988 (the DFW Act), 41 U.S.C. SS 701-707
    (1994).   Exxon has  made the  program's terms  available to  all
    employees; the program encourages employees voluntarily to report
    drug  and alcohol  problems; and  the company  not only  provides
    rehabilitative services to employees  who come forward, but  also
    promises that "[n]o employee . . . will be terminated due to  the
    request  for help  in overcoming  that dependency  or because  of
    involvement in a rehabilitation effort."
    Exxon's program reflects the company's recognition that
    drug use during the performance of safety-sensitive tasks poses a
    significant
    threat to co-workers and to the public.  Therefore, it
    subjects employees in these positions to random drug testing.  In
    that regard, the program puts Exxon's work force on notice of the
    company's intention to conduct "[u]nannounced periodic or  random
    [drug]
    testing" of employees who are working in certain designated
    safety-sensitive jobs.
    Albert
    A.
    Smith, a veteran Exxon employee, works in such
    a
    designated
    position.
    He is responsible for loading, driving, and
    unloading
    a
    five-axle
    tractor-trailer combination which, when fully
    loaded,
    carries 12,000 gallons of highly flammable motor fuel.  He
    typically  drives this  rig through  many of  New England's  more
    densely populated  areas.   Exxon requires  employees who  occupy
    designated
    safety-sensiti
    ve positions   and Smith's is plainly such
    4
    a  position                                                     h
    igned
    such
    a
    statement
    in 1989, thereby attesting that he had read
    and understood the parameters of Exxon's DFW program, that he was
    1    to sign so-called  compliance statements.   Smit
    s
    not abusing alcohol or drugs, and that he was amenable to  random
    drug testing.
    On
    August
    21,
    1990,
    Smith reported for duty.  Without any
    forewarning, Exxon  directed him  to  take a  drug test.    Smith
    submitted to the test and apparently drove his regular route that
    day.   The test  results were obtained  the following week;  they
    revealed that Smith  had cocaine in his bloodstream when  tested.
    Although the test results could not indicate when Smith had  used
    the cocaine or whether he had performed his job while still under
    its pernicious influence, Exxon decided that Smith posed a threat
    to public safety and fired him.
    The  Union  grieved  Smith's  ouster.    The  grievance
    culminated in arbitration.  The parties put two questions to  the
    arbitrator:
    (1)
    Did
    Exxon have just cause to discharge Smith?  (2)
    If
    not,
    what
    is the appropriate remedy?  In September of 1992, the
    arbitrator found the results of the drug test to be reliable  but
    nonetheless decided  that  Exxon  wrongfully  terminated  Smith's
    employment.  The arbitrator acknowledged that Part 11 of the  CBA
    gave Exxon the right  to discharge Smith for committing a  posted
    1In an earlier, unrelated case which involved  a hauler who,
    like Smith,  failed a random drug  test, we described a  somewhat
    similar
    job
    as
    entailing
    "work of a kind where, one suspects, there
    might be old practitioners, and there might be bold practitioners
    but
    there
    would likely be few (if any) old, bold practitioners."
    Jackson  v. Liquid Carbonic  Corp., 
    863 F.2d 111
    , 112 (1st  Cir.
    1988).
    5
    offense, but he reasoned that this right was subject to Part 11's
    "just
    cause"
    provision.  Concluding that dismissal was too extreme
    a
    punishment,
    the
    arbitrator settled upon a two-month suspension as
    an appropriate  disciplinary measure, to  be followed by  Smith's
    reinstatement if he passed a contemporaneous drug test.
    Exxon balked  at  the arbitrator's  award and  sued  in
    federal district court to set it aside.  The parties  cross-moved
    for summary judgment.  The lower court granted the Union's motion
    and affirmed the arbitral award.  Unyielding in its commitment to
    prevent Smith from getting behind the wheel of a petroleum truck,
    Exxon  appeals.    Our  review  of  the  district  court's  legal
    conclusions is plenary.  See Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v.
    Tanner, 
    72 F.3d 234
    , 237 (1st Cir. 1995).
    II.  PRINCIPLES AFFECTING JUDICIAL REVIEW
    Collective  bargaining   agreements  are  designed   to
    memorialize the terms and conditions of employers'  relationships
    with
    their
    unionized
    employees.  These agreements typically contain
    grievance  procedures that  designate  arbitration as  the  final
    dispute-resolution mechanism.  "In  such cases . . . courts  play
    only  a limited  role when  asked to  review the  decision of  an
    arbitrator."  United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 
    484 U.S. 29
    , 36 (1987).  In large part, that role is ordained  by the
    fact   that  "[i]n   labor  arbitration,   matters  of   contract
    interpretation  are  typically for  the  arbitrator,  not  for  a
    reviewing  court."   El Dorado  Technical Servs.,  Inc. v.  Union
    General De Trabajadores, 
    961 F.2d 317
    , 319 (1st Cir. 1992).   As
    6
    long as the arbitrator is arguably interpreting the CBA, a  court
    cannot
    second-guess his decision.  See 
    id.
     (citing Misco, 
    484 U.S. at 38
    ); Dorado Beach Hotel  Corp. v. Union De Trabajadores De  La
    Industria
    Gastronomica,
    Local 610, 
    959 F.2d 2
    , 3-4 (1st Cir. 1992).
    In  such  purlieus,  a court's  task  ordinarily  is  limited  to
    determining
    whether
    the
    arbitrator's construction of the collective
    bargaining agreement is to any extent plausible.  See Misco,  
    484 U.S. at 36-38
    .
    Policy
    spins
    this
    web
    of
    rules.  Judicial deference to an
    arbitrator's
    contract
    interpretation furthers "[t]he federal policy
    of  settling  labor disputes  by  arbitration  [which]  would  be
    undermined
    if courts had the final say on the merits of [arbitral]
    awards."
    Uni
    ted Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 
    363 U.S. 593
    ,
    596 (1960).  Through the medium of the CBA, the employer
    and the union bargain for the arbitrator's interpretation, and  a
    federal court must respect that bargain.  See W.R. Grace & Co. v.
    Local Union 759, Int'l  Union of United Rubber Workers, 
    461 U.S. 757
    , 765 (1983).  It follows, therefore, that a court should  not
    tamper with an  arbitral award "unless it  can be shown that  the
    arbitrator acted  in a  way for  which neither  party could  have
    bargained."  Local  1445, United Food & Commercial Workers  Int'l
    Union v. Stop & Shop Cos., 
    776 F.2d 19
    , 21 (1st Cir. 1985).
    Public policy, however,  has its own imperatives    and
    they  occasionally conflict  with  the  imperatives  of  contract
    interpretatio
    n.  It is a fundamental rule that courts must refrain
    from enforcing contracts that violate public policy.   Collective
    7
    bargaining agreements are  simply a species of contracts and,  as
    such,
    are
    not
    immune
    from the operation of this rule.  "As with any
    contract . . .,  a court may not enforce a  collective-bargaining
    agreement
    that
    is
    contrary to public policy."  W.R. Grace, 
    461 U.S. at 766
    ; accord Misco, 
    484 U.S. at 42-43
    .  Because this refusal to
    enforce
    contracts
    which
    offend public policy is inured in  judicial
    tradition,
    the
    question
    of what public policy demands is within the
    judicial, not the arbitral, domain.   See Misco, 
    484 U.S. at 43
    ;
    W.R. Grace, 
    461 U.S. at 766
    .
    III.  ANALYSIS
    In the district court, Exxon argued for reversal of the
    arbitral
    award
    on
    two
    grounds:  first, that the arbitrator exceeded
    his authority; and second, that the award violates public policy.
    The district court rejected  both arguments.  See Exxon Corp.  v.
    Esso Worker's  Union, Inc.,  
    942 F. Supp. 703
      (D. Mass.  1996).
    Because  courts  ought   not  trespass  unnecessarily  into   the
    uncertainties
    of the public policy terrain, we begin by discussing
    Exxon's more case-specific argument.
    A.  The Arbitrator's Authority.
    The key to this issue lies in Part 11 of the CBA.   One
    section
    of
    Part 11 provides that Exxon "may discharge or otherwise
    discipline" employees who commit posted offenses   "may," in this
    context,  "means has  a right  to," according  to the  definition
    contained
    in
    the CBA   and another section provides that employees
    may challenge  discharges which Exxon  has imposed without  "just
    cause."
    Exxon asseverates that the arbitrator should have equated
    8
    the "right to discharge" language with the "just cause" language;
    because
    Exxon reserves the right to discharge employees who commit
    posted offenses, this thesis runs, it perforce has just cause  to
    discharge such employees.
    But
    the
    arbitrator
    teased another meaning out of Part 11.
    He
    concluded
    that
    the
    language which permits Exxon "to discharge or
    otherwise discipline"  an employee who  commits a posted  offense
    furnishes
    Exxon
    with
    a
    range of disciplinary options, and that this
    range
    is
    in
    turn subject to an independent application of the just
    cause
    barometer.  On this reading of Part 11, the arbitrator ruled
    that
    Exxon
    did not have just cause to cashier Smith merely because
    he tested positive for drugs.2
    Although  Exxon's interpretation  of  the  CBA  may  be
    somewhat
    less strained, judges have no roving writ to construe the
    contract language  in the way  that they think  best.  Rather,  a
    2According to the arbitrator:
    just  cause  standard requires  that  the
    prove  by  the preponderance  of  th
    The
    Company                                     e
    evidence  that  the  employee  committed  the
    offense and that the level of discipline  was
    warranted
    .
    In this case the Company's actions
    were  automatic:     if  an  employee  in   a
    designated position  tests positive, s/he  is
    terminated.
    The Company's presumption is that
    the employee is a danger to public safety and
    the
    only
    remedy is to excise that danger.  The
    Company's  self-imposed  narrowness  in   its
    choice of remedy fails to meet the just cause
    standard.  There was no evidence that Company
    drivers had any  record of dangerous  driving
    due to ingesting illicit drugs.  In the  case
    of  Smith,  there   was  no  record  of   any
    discipline or any  signs or indications of  a
    drug-related problem during his nearly twenty
    years with the Company.  [Emphasis supplied.]
    9
    court's proper province is to determine whether the  arbitrator's
    reading  is plausible,  albeit not  the reading  the court  might
    choose.
    See
    El Dorado, 
    961 F.2d at 320
     ("When the language of the
    underlying contract, taken in context and with due regard for the
    surrounding circumstances,  is  fairly susceptible  to  differing
    meanings, a reviewing court must not meddle with the arbitrator's
    rendition.").  In this instance, the arbitrator's  interpretation
    survives that indulgent scrutiny.
    The proof of  the pudding is found in Crafts  Precision
    Indus., Inc.  v. Lodge No.  1836, Etc., 
    889 F.2d 1184
     (1st  Cir.
    1989).    There,  the employer  had  dismissed  an  employee  for
    insubordination.    The   CBA  listed  insubordination  as   "one
    ``example[]'  of  conduct [that]  may  result  in  suspension,  or
    immediate
    discharge," and also included a clause reserving for the
    employer
    the
    exclusive
    right to discipline employees.  
    Id.
     at 1184-
    85.
    In
    a
    refrain that echoes the argument which Exxon makes here,
    the
    employer
    argued
    that
    these two clauses, in conjunction, gave it
    an
    absolute
    right to discharge an employee for insubordination and
    urged the arbitrator to  equate this right to discharge with  the
    CBA's
    "just
    cause"
    provision.  The arbitrator interpreted the right
    to discharge as distinct from just cause to discharge and instead
    reinstated the employee.  On appeal, we upheld the award  because
    the challenged language was open to several interpretations,  and
    the
    arbitrator's
    position reflected one such (plausible) iteration.
    See 
    id. at 1185
    .  Because Crafts  is a fair congener,  precedent
    compels
    us
    to conclude that the arbitrator's interpretation of the
    10
    disputed language here is within the pale and that the arbitrator
    did not exceed his authority in this respect.
    B.  Public Policy.
    Exxon's second  claim  of error  can most  usefully  be
    discussed in three segments.
    1.
    Framing
    the Inquiry.  Misco is the watershed case in
    respect to  judicial  review of  an  arbitration award  which  is
    challenged on public policy grounds.  There, the company employed
    Cooper as  a  night-shift  machinist whose  duties  involved  the
    operation of a dangerous  piece of equipment.  One night,  police
    arrested
    him
    in the company parking lot, having discovered him "in
    the backseat of  [a] car with  marijuana smoke in  the air and  a
    lighted
    marijuana
    cigarette in the frontseat ashtray."  
    484 U.S. at 33
    .   The company then  fired him for  breaking its rule  against
    possession  of illicit  drugs on  business premises.   The  union
    grieved  Cooper's  discharge,  and  an  arbitrator  ordered   his
    reinstatement.  The  company sued and the federal district  court
    annulled  the award based  on public policy.   The Fifth  Circuit
    affirmed, holding that Cooper's reinstatement "would violate  the
    public policy  ``against the operation  of dangerous machinery  by
    persons under  the influence of  drugs or alcohol.'"   
    Id. at 35
    (quoting 
    768 F.2d 739
    , 743 (5th Cir. 1985)).
    The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that a court may set
    aside
    an
    arbitrator's
    award on public policy grounds only when "the
    contract
    as
    interpreted
    would violate ``some explicit public policy'
    that is ``well  defined and dominant.'"   Id. at 43 (quoting  W.R.
    11
    Grace, 
    461 U.S. at 766
    ).   Neither  common sense  nor  "general
    consideration
    s of supposed public interests" are suitable vehicles
    for identifying public policy;  rather, courts must glean  public
    policy from laws and legal precedents.  
    Id.
     (quoting W.R.  Grace,
    
    461 U.S. at 766
    ).  Because the lower courts had predicated  their
    perceptions
    of
    public
    policy on intuition rather than positive law,
    the judgment could not stand.
    Misco
    teaches that, though courts may set aside arbitral
    awards which contravene public policy,  they may do so only in  a
    narrow class of cases, marked by a special set of  circumstances.
    See
    id.
    at
    43.  To determine whether a particular case fits within
    the confines  of  this class,  courts  must employ  a  two-tiered
    analytic approach.   First, since a  generalized sense of  public
    policy  provides an  insufficient basis  upon which  to annul  an
    arbitral award, an inquiring court must review existing statutes,
    regulations,  and judicial  decisions to  ascertain whether  they
    establish a well defined and dominant public policy.  If positive
    law
    does
    not
    give rise to such a policy, the inquiry is at an end.
    See
    id.
    at
    43-44.  If, however, the court finds that such a policy
    exists, it must then proceed to the second step of the pavane and
    determine
    whether
    the
    arbitral award clearly violates the discerned
    public policy.3  See id. at 44.
    3The  Misco Court provided an  apt illustration of how  the
    second-stage inquiry operates.  It noted that, even assuming  the
    existence of the public policy perceived by the court of appeals,
    reinstating  Cooper did  not  necessarily frustrate  that  policy
    because there was no showing that Cooper had used marijuana while
    on
    the
    job.
    The
    Court
    thought that "the assumed connection between
    the marijuana gleanings found in Cooper's car and Cooper's actual
    12
    2.
    Identifyi
    ng the Public Policy.  There is a plenitude
    of positive law  to support the existence  of a well defined  and
    dominant
    public policy against the performance of safety-sensitive
    jobs
    while
    under the influence of drugs or other intoxicants.  See
    Gulf
    Coast
    Indus. Workers Union v. Exxon Co., 
    991 F.2d 244
    , 252-53
    (5th Cir.  1993) (collecting  cases).   Gulf  Coast itself  is  a
    representativ
    e case.  There, the court set aside an arbitral award
    which proposed  to reinstate  in a  safety-sensitive position  an
    employee who had tested positive for drug use after admitting  to
    his
    employer
    that he had a drug problem but representing (falsely,
    as  matters turned  out)  that  he was  obtaining  treatment  and
    abstaining from substance abuse.  The court amply illustrated the
    proposition that  numerous  statutes, regulations,  and  judicial
    opinions  "pronounce the  emphatic national  desire to  eradicate
    illicit
    drugs
    from
    the
    workplace," particularly in safety-sensitive
    occupations.
    
    Id. at 250
    ; see also Exxon Corp. v. Baton Rouge Oil,
    
    77 F.3d 850
    , 855-56 (5th Cir. 1996) (again finding a well defined
    and dominant  public policy  against the  performance of  safety-
    sensitive jobs while under the influence of drugs).
    The Third  Circuit has addressed  the same  issue in  a
    trilogy  of cases  (all  featuring  an employer  related  to  the
    appellant here).  In Exxon Shipping Co. v. Exxon Seamen's  Union,
    
    993 F.2d 357
     (3d Cir.  1993) (Exxon I), the court invoked  public
    policy
    in
    refusing to enforce an arbitral award which directed the
    use of drugs in the workplace is tenuous at best and provides  an
    insufficient  basis for  holding  that  his  reinstatement  would
    actually violate the [perceived] public policy."  
    484 U.S. at 44
    .
    13
    employer to reinstate a helmsman who had tested positive for drug
    use after his ship ran aground.  Id. at 364.  The court relied in
    part on a series of Coast Guard regulations, declaring them to be
    "part  of a  broader public  policy against  operation of  common
    carriers under  the influence of  drugs," and  found that  policy
    adequately
    evinced
    by
    an
    array of drug-testing regulations.  Id. at
    361-62 (citing  14 C.F.R.  part  121, Appendix I (1992)  (Federal
    Aviation Administration drug-testing program); 49 C.F.R. part 219
    (1991) (Federal Railroad Administration drug-testing program); 49
    C.F.R. part 391 subpart H (1991) (Federal Highway  Administration
    drug-testing program)).
    In Exxon Shipping Co. v. Exxon Seamen's Union, 
    11 F.3d 1189
     (3d Cir. 1993) (Exxon  II), the court continued on the  same
    course.  It  set aside as contrary  to public policy an  arbitral
    award
    reinstating
    an
    employee who reported to work inebriated.  The
    court declared "that an owner or operator of an oil tanker should
    not be compelled to reinstate to a ``safety-sensitive' position an
    individual who has been found to be intoxicated while on duty  on
    that vessel."  
    Id. at 1194
    .  Finally,  in Exxon Shipping Co.  v.
    Exxon
    Seamen's Union, 
    73 F.3d 1287
     (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 
    116 S. Ct. 2515
     (1996) (Exxon III), the court reinstated an employee who
    had
    refused
    to submit to a drug test, finding that the CBA did not
    require the  employee to  take the test.   Even  then, the  court
    reaffirmed its earlier finding that there exists a "broad  public
    policy against permitting an individual to operate a vessel while
    under the influence of drugs or alcohol."  
    Id. at 1292
    .
    14
    This chorus  has  many voices.   Several  other  courts
    likewise
    have identified a well defined and dominant public policy
    against the performance of safety-sensitive jobs by persons under
    the influence of intoxicants.  Thus, in Union Pacific R.R. Co. v.
    United Transp. Union, 
    3 F.3d 255
    , 262 (8th Cir. 1993), the  court
    used public  policy as  a lever to  set aside  an arbitral  award
    reinstating a railroad brakeman who had tested positive for  drug
    use after a switching accident.  The court had "no difficulty  in
    concluding that there exists  a well-defined and dominant  public
    policy  against a  railroad's  employment  of  individuals  whose
    impaired  judgment due  to  the use  of  drugs or  alcohol  could
    seriously threaten  public safety."  
    Id. at 261
    .  Similarly,  in
    Delta
    Air
    Lines,
    Inc.
    v.
    Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l, 
    861 F.2d 665
    ,
    674 (11th Cir.  1988), the court defenestrated an arbitral  award
    presuming to  reinstate a pilot who  had flown an aircraft  while
    obviously
    drunk.
    The
    court described this as a "rare example of an
    award the enforcement of which would violate clearly  established
    public policy which condemns the operation of passenger airliners
    by
    pilots
    who
    are
    under
    the influence of alcohol."  Id. at 671.  By
    like  token,  the   district  court  in  Georgia  Power  Co.   v.
    International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 84, 
    707 F. Supp. 531
    ,
    538-39  (N.D. Ga. 1989),  aff'd, 
    896 F.2d 507
     (11th Cir.  1990),
    recognized  the public  policy  against  performance  of  safety-
    sensitive jobs  by persons under the  influence of drugs and  set
    aside an arbitral award aimed at reinstating an employee who  had
    tested positive for drug use.
    15
    We
    agree
    with
    these
    courts.  In our judgment, society has
    achieved a broad  national consensus that  persons should not  be
    allowed to endanger others while laboring under the influence  of
    drugs.   This consensus  is  made manifest  by positive  law  and
    translates
    into
    a
    well
    defined and dominant public policy   indeed,
    a
    national
    crusade
    counselling against the performance of safety-
    sensitive tasks by individuals who are so impaired.
    One subset of this policy is that persons who are under
    the influence  of narcotics or  other intoxicants  should not  be
    permitted
    to
    operate commercial vehicles on public highways.  This
    conclusion is fortified by our knowledge that the legislatures of
    those states through  which Smith must drive a petroleum  tanker-
    truck have uniformly criminalized the operation of motor vehicles
    by persons who are  under the influence of alcohol or  controlled
    substances.  See Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90 S 24(1)(a)(1)  (West
    1997)
    (criminalizing the operation of "a motor vehicle while under
    the influence of intoxicating  liquor, or of marijuana,  narcotic
    drugs,
    depressants or stimulant substances"); R.I. Gen. Laws S 31-
    10.3-31(a) (1996) (making it "illegal for any person driving  any
    commercial motor  vehicle . .  . to operate  or control any  such
    vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, toluene,  or
    any
    other
    [controlled]
    substance"); 
    id.
     S 31-27-2(a) (criminalizing
    the
    driving
    of "any vehicle . . . while under the influence of any
    intoxicating
    liquor,
    drugs, toluene, or any controlled substance");
    Conn.
    Gen.
    Stat.
    Ann.
    S
    14-227a(a) (West 1997) (similar); N.H. Rev.
    Stat. Ann. S 265:82 (I)(a) (1995) (similar); Vt. Stat. Ann.  tit.
    16
    23, S 1201(a) (1995) (similar); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 29-A,  S
    2411(1) (West 1996) (similar).
    We find  further evidence of  this policy in  Congress'
    enactment in 1991 of the Omnibus Transportation Employee  Testing
    Act (the Testing Act), now codified in 49 U.S.C. S 31306  (1994).
    The Testing  Act  instructs the  Secretary of  Transportation  to
    promulgate regulations "that establish a program requiring  motor
    carriers to conduct preemployment, reasonable suspicion,  random,
    and
    post-accident
    testing of operators of commercial motor vehicles
    for  the  use  of  alcohol or  controlled  substances."    
    Id.
      S
    31306(b)(1)(A
    ).  In response, several Department of Transportation
    agencies  have promulgated  regulations designed  to promote  the
    public policy against  performance of  safety-sensitive tasks  by
    persons  who  use  drugs.   For  example,  the  Federal  Aviation
    Administration has devised a program which requires preemployment
    drug  testing as well  as periodic drug  testing of employees  in
    safety-sensitive positions.   See 14 C.F.R. Part 121, Appendix  I
    (1996).  The Coast Guard has promulgated regulations in order "to
    minimize
    the
    use
    of
    intoxicants by merchant marine personnel and to
    promote a  drug free  and safe work  environment."   46 C.F.R.  S
    16.101(a)
    (1996).  The Federal Railroad Administration has adopted
    regulations  crafted to  "prevent  accidents  and  casualties  in
    railroad operations that result  from impairment of employees  by
    alcohol or  drugs."  49  C.F.R. S 219.1(a)  (1996).  The  Federal
    Transit
    Administration's regulations now require each recipient of
    a subsidy "to implement an anti-drug program to deter and  detect
    17
    the use of prohibited drugs  by covered employees."  49 C.F.R.  S
    653.3 (1996).   Last, but surely  not least, the Federal  Highway
    Administration's regulations have been tailored "to help  prevent
    accidents
    and injuries resulting from the misuse of alcohol or use
    of
    controlled substances by drivers of commercial motor vehicles."
    49 C.F.R. S 382.101 (1996).
    Congress'
    strongest statement against the performance of
    safety-sensitive tasks  while  under the  influence of  drugs  is
    embodied
    in
    the DFW Act, which instructs federal agencies to award
    contracts
    or
    grants only to those employers who promise to provide
    a drug-free working  environment by:  (1) publishing a  statement
    informing  employees that  use  of  drugs is  prohibited  in  the
    workplace; (2) establishing a "drug-free awareness program;"  (3)
    providing  employees  with  drug  counseling  and  rehabilitation
    services; (4)  adopting and imposing  penalties on employees  who
    violate the terms  of the "drug-free awareness program;" and  (5)
    furnishing  employees with  copies  of the  employer's  statement
    against on-the-job drug use.  41 U.S.C. SS 701(a)(1), 702(a)(1).
    At
    this
    point
    in
    American history, few elements of public
    policy command the consensus that attaches to the policy  against
    the use of controlled substances by those whose work  potentially
    imperils  others.   Judicial decisions,  agency regulations,  and
    legislative
    enactments combine to form a solid phalanx of positive
    law evidencing a well defined and dominant public policy  against
    the
    performance
    of
    safety-sensitive tasks while under the influence
    of
    drugs.
    Thus,
    Exxon
    has satisfactorily negotiated the first step
    18
    of the public policy pavane.
    3.  The Interface.  Confirming the existence of a  well
    defined and dominant public policy  is only half the battle.   To
    abandon an arbitral award  as contrary to public policy, a  court
    must find that the award clearly violates the identified  policy.
    See Misco, 
    484 U.S. at 43
    ; Prudential-Bache, 
    72 F.3d at 241
    .   In
    this  instance, the  Union  contends that,  even  if there  is  a
    cognizable  public policy  against  the  performance  of  safety-
    sensitive
    work
    by
    individuals who are under the influence of drugs,
    reinstating Smith would not insult such a policy because there is
    no
    evidence
    that
    Smith
    was in the grip of cocaine while driving his
    petroleum truck.  According to the Union, the positive result  of
    Smith's
    random
    drug
    test
    "merely" indicates the presence of cocaine
    in
    his
    bloodstream; it does not necessarily signify that Smith was
    under
    the
    influence of the narcotic either at the time of the test
    or at the time he drove his rig.4
    The
    Union
    casts this argument so narrowly that it misses
    the mark.  Relying upon job-relatedness as the sole determinative
    factor in  permitting employers to  discharge employees who  test
    positive
    for
    drug use would force employers to wait for some other
    consequential
    indication
    that drugs are affecting work performance.
    4Altho ugh the arbitrator found that the drug test  reliably
    indicated
    the
    presence
    of cocaine in Smith's system (a finding that
    the Union does not contest on appeal), the test results could not
    pinpoint  when  Smith  was under  the  drug's  influence.    This
    uncertainty arises from the fact that the manner in which cocaine
    metabolizes within  a  person's body  depends  upon a  myriad  of
    factors, many of which (e.g., the potency and purity of the  drug
    ingested,  the  drug-user's  tolerance,  food  consumption,   and
    psychological condition) were not known to Exxon.
    19
    Typically, this other indication will be an accident.  See, e.g.,
    Union Pacific,  
    3 F.3d at 256-57
    ; Exxon I,  
    993 F.2d at 358-59
    ;
    Amalgamated
    Meat
    Cutters, Local Union 540 v. Great W. Food Co., 
    712 F.2d 122
    , 123-24 (5th Cir. 1983).  The notorious mishap involving
    the Exxon Valdez, which produced vast environmental  devastation,
    highlights the core  problem associated with this  "wait-and-see"
    approach.  If we have learned anything from such catastrophes, it
    is that  employers must act  affirmatively to avoid  drug-related
    accidents
    rather than wait passively for such accidents to happen.
    We  conclude, therefore,  that  the  well  defined  and
    dominant
    public
    policy
    which we have identified does not require an
    employer
    to
    await the occurrence of an accident before discharging
    an employee who tests positive for drug use.  In this sense,  the
    public policy is not as closely cabined as the Union implies.  It
    is the Union's failure to recognize  this aspect   and, thus,  to
    appreciate the full breadth of the discerned public policy   that
    is fatal to its argument and crucial to our decision.
    The  pertinent public  policy  dictates not  only  that
    employees
    refrain
    from
    performing safety-sensitive jobs while under
    the  influence of  drugs, but  also that  employers develop  (and
    enforce) programs designed  to discourage such  activity.    This
    added
    dimension is most apparent in the DFW Act and in the Testing
    Act.  The impact  of the latter statute  is made manifest by  the
    proliferation of governmental  regulations which mandate  regular
    drug testing for employees  in safety-sensitive positions.   See,
    e.g., 14 C.F.R.  Part 121, Appendix  I (1996) (codifying  Federal
    20
    Aviation Administration's  drug-testing  program); 46  C.F.R.  SS
    16.101-16.500 (1996)  (codifying Coast  Guard's chemical  testing
    program);  49 C.F.R.  SS  219.1-219.715 (1996)  (limning  Federal
    Railroad Administration's drug-testing procedures); 49 C.F.R.  SS
    653.1-653.83 (1996) (delineating Federal Transit Administration's
    drug-testing procedures);  49  C.F.R. SS  382.101-382.605  (1996)
    (describing, inter alia,  Federal Highway Administration's  drug-
    testing procedures).  This statutory and regulatory mosaic  bears
    witness  that  the same  public  policy  which  countervails  the
    performance
    of safety-sensitive tasks while under the influence of
    drugs also encourages (and, in some cases, requires) employers to
    implement and enforce drug-free workplace programs which  include
    mandatory drug testing of those in safety-sensitive posts.
    Consistent with  this  enhanced  understanding  of  the
    discerned  public policy,  we hold  that forcing  an employer  to
    reinstate an employee who tests positive for drug use pursuant to
    a test  that the  employer  administers as  part of  a  drug-free
    workplace program would undermine that policy.  It makes no sense
    to construe  public policy  as encouraging    and  in some  cases
    mandating     employers  to establish  and  enforce  drug-testing
    programs,
    yet to preclude them from taking decisive action against
    those employees who test positive.
    The   Union  warns   that   this  holding   is   wholly
    unprecedented.
    But
    the
    demands of public policy are dynamic rather
    than static.   Modern  society's widespread  recognition of,  and
    increasingly
    aggressive response to, the growing drug problem is a
    21
    harbinger
    that
    public
    policy may make progressively greater demands
    on
    industry.
    Moreover,
    the Union's claim that we are blazing a new
    trail is not entirely accurate.
    At least  two recent cases  track the expanding  public
    policy on which we rely.  These cases note, albeit in dicta, that
    employers
    must not be compelled to reinstate personnel who violate
    the
    terms
    of
    a
    comprehensive drug-free workplace program.  In Baton
    Rouge
    Oil,
    the Fifth Circuit reversed as contrary to public policy
    an
    arbitral
    decision awarding back pay to an employee in a safety-
    sensitive position who  had tested positive for cocaine during  a
    random drug test.  The  court held that allowing the employee  to
    collect
    back
    pay
    would
    contravene public policy despite the absence
    of
    any
    evidence that he actually had performed his job while drug-
    impaired.
    See
    Baton
    Rouge Oil, 
    77 F.3d at 856
    .  In so holding, the
    court noted the absurdity of reinstating such an employee:
    It is  undisputed that  Chube [the  employee]
    occupied a safety-sensitive position.  It  is
    also
    undisputed that Chube tested positive for
    cocaine
    use
    while occupying that position, and
    thereby  endangered   the  safety  of   other
    employees.  We  think that the public  policy
    exception  . .  . must  be read  not only  to
    prohibit  the  prospective  placement  of  an
    employee into a position where he is a danger
    to his company and to fellow employees (i.e.,
    order
    of
    reinstatement into a safety-sensitive
    position),   but    also   to   prohibit    a
    retrospective approval of the conduct . . . .
    
    Id.
    The Third Circuit echoed these sentiments in Exxon  III
    while
    upholding an arbitral award which reinstated an employee who
    refused
    to
    take
    a
    drug
    test.  The court premised this ruling on the
    22
    arbitrator's conclusion that, under  the terms of the  collective
    bargaining agreement, the  company lacked cause to insist upon  a
    drug test.  See Exxon III, 
    73 F.3d at 1295-96
    .  En  route to this
    determination,  however, the  court  observed that  "[a]  clearly
    defined and cautiously administered program of drug testing . . .
    is the natural  corollary to .  . . a  strong public policy  that
    precludes
    allowing
    intoxicated or drug-impaired seamen to remain in
    safety-sensit
    ive positions aboard oil tankers."  
    Id. at 1294
    .  The
    court went on to proclaim  that the "right to test employees  for
    alcohol or drug use . . . is critical to achieving the objective"
    of preventing drug-impaired  individuals from performing  safety-
    sensitive
    jobs.  
    Id.
      The court's ensuing discussion left no doubt
    that,
    if
    a
    drug
    test
    was
    validly requested, reinstating an employee
    who boycotted it would undermine public policy.  See 
    id.
     at 1294-
    95.
    Baton Rouge Oil and Exxon III reinforce the proposition
    that
    a
    comprehensive and finely-tuned DFW program which includes a
    drug-testing
    component
    is a natural corollary to the ringing public
    policy
    against performance of safety-sensitive jobs by individuals
    who
    are
    under the influence of narcotics or other intoxicants.  It
    follows
    that,
    if
    an
    employer elects to establish such a program and
    properly preserves its right of implementation in the  collective
    bargaining agreement, thwarting the employer's efforts to enforce
    the
    program's standards would countervail the basic public policy.
    The Union  intimates  that the  public policy  we  have
    identified,
    if it persists at all, can be vindicated by some other
    23
    disciplinary
    measure,
    short of termination.  This intimation misses
    the
    construed,
    would insult public policy for a court to enforce a contract that
    a worker  who  has  scorned the  employer's  drug-free  workplace
    program.5
    This
    case
    is
    emblematic of the proposition.  In terms of
    public policy,  it would be  grossly counterproductive to  impede
    Exxon's
    efforts
    at
    fully
    implementing its DFW program by forcing it
    to reinstate  an employee  who blatantly  violated the  program's
    terms.
    Indeed, Smith's utter disregard for Exxon's DFW program is
    point.   The arbitrator  has said  in effect  that the  CBA
    properly             requires Exxon to reinstate  Smith   and  it
    requires the ongoing employment in a safety-sensitive capacity of
    one
    feature
    which distinguishes this case from Misco.6  Unlike the
    employer in  Misco, Exxon maintains  a comprehensive DFW  program
    which
    is
    delicately
    calibrated to further the public policy against
    job  performance while  under the  influence of  drugs and  other
    5
    ,
    Moreover, the alternative remedy selected by the arbitrator
    a two-month suspension, followed by a one-time drug test   does
    not hold out much promise for the safety of either the public  or
    Smith's fellow employees.  Smith's failed drug trust evinces  his
    inability
    or
    unwillingness to conform to the strictures of the DFW
    program.  If he were returned to a safety-sensitive position,  as
    the arbitrator  suggests,  there would  be  no sound  reason  for
    believing that the leopard had changed his spots.
    6
    Another
    distinguishing feature is temporal in nature.  Misco
    arose out of an incident that occurred in January 1983.  Judicial
    review did not end until the Supreme Court spoke in 1987.   Here,
    however, Smith failed  the drug test in  the summer of 1990,  and
    judicial review  is still  ongoing.   As  our discussion  of  the
    emerging
    public
    policy
    reveals, see text supra, Misco predates both
    the Testing  Act and  the DFW  Act.   This chronological  reality
    highlights
    the broader fact:  public policy in respect to drugs in
    the workplace has matured  greatly in the decade since Misco  was
    decided.
    24
    intoxicants.  Smith transgressed the terms of this program  three
    times over:   failing to  report his drug  use to Exxon,  falsely
    representing that he abjured illicit drugs, and  testing positive
    for  drug use.    Given  this threefold  violation,  Exxon  acted
    reasonably
    in selecting discharge as the most appropriate means of
    eliminating the threat  that Smith poses to  the public.  In  the
    bargain,
    Exxon's action was also a necessary means of ensuring the
    integrity of its DFW program.  Forcing Exxon to reinstate, into a
    safety-sensitive position, an  employee who lacks any  meaningful
    commitment to its DFW  program would hamstring its  well-directed
    attempts to implement public policy.
    The Union tries to retrieve yet one more arrow from its
    quiver.
    Under
    the
    terms
    of its DFW program, Exxon treats employees
    who test  positive for drug use  more harshly than employees  who
    voluntarily come  forward and reveal  that they are  experiencing
    problems.  During  oral argument, the Union attempted to  distort
    Exxon's distinction  between  these  two types  of  employees  by
    suggesting that, since Exxon does not discharge the latter (i.e.,
    employees who voluntarily report drug abuse), it lacks sufficient
    reason
    to
    discharge
    the
    former (i.e., employees who are "caught" by
    random drug testing).
    This  argument is  deeply  flawed.    Exxon  encourages
    employees
    to
    report
    their drug use so that the company can transfer
    such
    workers
    to
    jobs
    that do not implicate public safety while they
    undergo rehabilitation.  These employees do not pose a threat  to
    the public because,  by reporting their drug abuse, they  provide
    25
    Exxon with the opportunity to implement safety precautions.   The
    actions
    of
    these
    employees are radically different from the actions
    of employees who, like Smith, attempt to conceal their drug  use.
    These duplicitous employees pose  a real and serious threat:   by
    failing
    to
    report
    their
    problem, they deny Exxon the opportunity to
    take precautions  to safeguard  the public.   On  this basis,  we
    believe
    it
    is
    reasonable
    and fully consistent with the identified
    public
    policy   for Exxon to offer a measure of job security as an
    incentive for  voluntary reporting, while  cutting all ties  with
    employees
    who do not accept the incentive and who subsequently are
    caught.
    We
    need
    go
    no
    further.
    Because Smith thumbed his nose at
    Exxon's DFW program, his reinstatement clearly would violate  the
    well defined  and dominant public  policy against performance  of
    safety-sensitive jobs while under the influence of drugs.  Hence,
    the federal courts must refuse to enforce the arbitral award.
    Reversed.
    26