** SEE: Okl., 811 P.2d 907 (1991)
( Means )
Appeal From the District Court of Grady County; James R. Winchester, Trial Judge.
District court action by employer to review grant of unemployment benefits by Board of Review of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission to employee who had been fired for reporting to work with detectable levels of marijuana in his system, in violation of company rules, but who exhibited no signs of impairment. The district court affirmed the grant of benefits.
AFFIRMED.
Jim T. Priest, Sharon K. O'Roke, David W. Kirk, McKinney, Stringer & Webster, P.C., Oklahoma City, for appellant.
Kathryn A. Rodgers, Kade A. McClure,Legal Aid of Western Oklahoma Lawton for appellee Novotny.
Margaret R. Dawkins, Oklahoma City, for appellee Oklahoma Employment Security Com'n.
Employer Grace Drilling Company brought this action in the District Court of Grady County to review an order of defendant Board of Review of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission granting unemployment benefits to defendant Timothy J. Novotny. The trial court affirmed the order, and Grace has appealed. Having reviewed the record and applicable law, we affirm.
Grace is in the business of drilling for oil. Grace's written policies include prohibitions against either reporting for work or being on duty "when tested positive on a drug screen" and for "entry upon Company premises or being at work ... under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.... 'Under the influence' is defined for purposes of this policy as ... having any detectable level of alcohol, drugs or controlled substances, or any combination thereof, in the body." Grace further requires employees to consent to random "pre-/post-employment" substance testing.
Defendant Novotny was a derrick hand who had worked for Grace for six years. In August 1987, upon returning from a two-week break, he was administered a random urine screening which tested positive for marijuana. Based solely on the test results, Grace then terminated his employment. It was undisputed that Novotny had exhibited no signs of impairment. He had never been otherwise reprimanded for deficient job performance.
Novotny then applied for unemployment benefits, which the initial OESC adjuster granted. Grace appealed this determination to the appeal tribunal, which found that Novotny had violated Grace's substance policy and reversed the adjuster's decision. Novotny then appealed that decision to the OESC Board of Review. The Board reversed the tribunal's order and allowed benefits, concluding 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." Grace then unsuccessfully appealed to the district court.
In reviewing cases from the Board of Review, the jurisdiction of this court is limited to questions of law.