Employers who accept last-chance agreements should understand that they are not a substitute for the ADA`s obligation to make appropriate arrangements. If the employer makes a second chance, he or she should be prepared to respond to requests for leave for rehabilitation programs, 12 or other. It may be helpful to give the employee general time frames to meet each of the terms of the last-chance agreement, to ensure that the employee moves forward towards a return to work and productivity. For example, the employee may be required to go to rehab as soon as the institution can accommodate him, submit status reports mid-term and after closing, and undergo monthly drug or alcohol testing within the first six months of returning to work. In this section, the employer indicates what happens if the worker does not comply with all the terms of the agreement. As a general rule, the consequence is an immediate termination, unless the employee has a valid reason not to do so. If the employee.B signs a medical authorization so that the employer can receive progress reports but the institution does not make them available, this may be a cause of non-compliance. When considering dismissal, employers should consider whether it makes more sense to use an AIC than to dismiss the employee. The CMA can be very helpful if the employer is concerned about the lack of documentation in the employee`s file. It also undermines the employee`s ability to argue that the worker did not know that his behaviour could lead to dismissal, which can also help to defend an unemployment report.
As an alternative to dismissal, employers who face violations of workers` drug or alcohol policies sometimes want to give that person a second chance. Typically, this process involves requiring the employee to seek treatment or advice for substance abuse, as well as the promise not to participate in other abuses, often supported by sample testing. Violation of a last-chance agreement is usually grounds for immediate termination, regardless of the unions that normally apply. The text of these agreements is largely contained in the text, in order to avoid further arbitrations. The decision recently published by the Michigan Court of Appeals, Jewett v. Mesick Consolidated School District, No. 348407, 2020 WL 3005995 (Die. Ct. App.
June 4, 2020) shows why an employer should consider an I.A. if it has made a decision to dismiss an employee, even in a non-union situation.