** SEE: Okl., 789 P.2d 636 (1989)
Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; Jane Wiseman, Judge.
REVERSED.
D. Gregory Bledsoe, Tulsa, Richard B. Wilkinson, Oklahoma Educ. Ass'n, Oklahoma City, for appellants.
David L. Fist, J. Douglas Mann, and Jerry A. Richardson, Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold, Tulsa, for appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
( BAILEY )
Appellants seek review of the Trial Court's order reversing an award of unemployment benefits. Appellee School District had employed Appellants as bus drivers for several years. In April, 1986, Appellee adopted a change in policy which required employees in safety-sensitive positions, such as bus drivers, to take a drug screening urinalysis as part of an annual physical, failure of which would result in termination. Although Appellants generally denied knowledge of this change in policy, pursuant to the policy, Appellants underwent testing in early August, 1986. Appellants Logan, Connery, and Wilson tested positive for THC metabolites (marijuana), and Appellant Bolton tested positive for another drug (PCP). Appellants Logan, Connery and Wilson were discharged; Bolton resigned.
The Appellants then applied for unemployment benefits. All but Bolton adamantly denied drug use, and submitted subsequent additional drug test results, revealing negative test results. Both Appellants and Appellee presented expert testimony as to the conduct and reliability of the several laboratory tests applied to Appellants' specimens. The Board of Review found:
"... That Appellee had no evidence of odd, erratic or potentially unsafe behavior on the part of claimants, but rather the drug tests were administered to all transportation employees;
The Board concludes that, for purposes of unemployment insurance, an employer may require a drug test of an employee if the employer has reasonable grounds to believe that an employee is impaired by drugs;
The Board further concludes that before benefits are denied for failing a drug test, it should be shown that: (1) proper testing and confirmation procedures have been followed and (2) there is clear objective evidence of impairment, such as bizarre behavior or loss of productivity;
The Board further concludes that as no evidence of impairment has been presented in this case, the claimants' termination for failure of the drug test was not misconduct within the meaning of