Foremen found a worker asleep in his car 30 minutes after he was scheduled to report for work. After waking him, they noticed that his eyes were bloodshot and that he was walking and talking unusually slowly. The foremen suspected the worker was under the influence and asked him to submit to drug/alcohol testing under the organization’s fitness for duty (FFD) policy. The worker refused and was fired. The key question: Did the organization have reasonable cause to do a FFD test on the worker? The arbitrator said no and reinstated the worker. As usual, it came down to the witnesses. Most of them testified that the worker seemed “very alert” during the shift and was normally sluggish and fatigued. The Ontario arbitrator found the foreman who testified against the worker to be less credible and suggested that his “negative history” with the worker might have been his motivation in demanding that he be tested under the FFD policy [Toronto Transit Commission v Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, 2019 CanLII 36521 (ON LA), April 24, 2019].