Judge Turns Down Request to Suspend County Drug Tests : Worker rights: Applicants for sensitive and safety-related jobs may still be tested. Unions had asked for injunction to halt new program.

Los Angeles County employees were legally thwarted Friday in their attempts to temporarily stop the county’s newly initiated program to test some job applicants for drug use.

A coalition of unions representing 30,000 workers was denied a preliminary injunction by Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffee, who ruled that under state law the county had the right to test job applicants who are applying for sensitive and safety-related positions.

“If the county wants to make darn sure that they don’t hire a drug user for a sensitive position, they can do it,” Yaffee said.

He ruled that the county could implement the program without negotiating with the union because it is not directed against present county employees.

The new program, initiated by county officials July 2, requires applicants for certain county jobs to submit to drug testing. Among jobs covered by the new guidelines are public safety positions, such as sheriff’s deputies, lifeguards and firefighters; driver positions, such as chauffeurs and trash truck operators, and positions that involve significant financial responsibilities, such as accountants.

County employees who apply for transfers to such jobs are subject to the testing, as well as applicants from outside the county ranks. So far, county officials said, only sheriff’s deputy trainees have been tested.

The unions sought the preliminary injunction to stop the program until the County Employee Relations Commission can hear their complaint of unfair employee relations practices, which was sparked by the county’s failure to bargain with the unions before implementing the guidelines.

“The unions don’t condone drug use, but we feel the program should not have been implemented without union bargaining,” said Alexander Cvitan, attorney for the workers’ coalition.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of employers to demand drug tests for employment applicants or personnel who have been involved in on-the-job accidents and for those who take periodic physical exams as a condition of employment. But attorneys who represent labor unions believe that the court has yet to rule definitively whether purely random tests are constitutional or if they violate the 4th Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches.

Recently, the California Supreme Court let stand lower court rulings that employers cannot fire or otherwise punish workers who refuse to submit to random drug tests. The ruling was based on California’s constitutional privacy protections.

The county, however, has not implemented random testing.

Locally, the Southern California Rapid Transit District last year began administering random drug tests to its 7,000 drivers and mechanics, and the Los Angeles Police Department ordered mandatory random drug testing of its captains, commanders and deputy chiefs beginning May 1. Those who test positive for illegal drugs face being fired.

A program that would require 6,000 other city police to be tested randomly once a year is under negotiation with the police union.