*1 58 employment.
Cote an offer of 39 refused 66-A(6) (1989). Great North- M.R.S.A. § Betty J. COTE drug ern that failure of a contends Cote’s v. accept test a refusal to suitable constituted GREAT NORTHERN PAPER CO. reject work. that contention and af- We Appellate firm the Division’s decision. Supreme Judicial of Court Maine. 1989, had Prior to the summer of Cote 15, Argued June 1992. injuries. In sustained two work-related 15, July Decided 1992. June Great Northern offered her tem- 1989 employment physical her ca- porary within pacity period. the summer for vacation Despite knowledge compa- that the Cote’s test, drug screening ny required a she took the for positive test and tested cannabis. petitioned for a Great Northern thereafter recovery of benefits and a of reduction 1, July 1989, made the overpayments after returned to date she could have work. 66-A(6) pertinent in provides Section. part: injured employee to ac- any If refuses reinstatement, cept the em- offer of an may petition a for a ployer file ... ... If, hearing, after of benefits. reduction an employee the finds that commission accept posi- and the to the offer refused physical to his tion was suitable offered condition, of it shall the reduction order payable under section 54-B all benefits and 55-B.
The that Great Northern Commission ruled proof, its burden of had failed to sustain to to return finding that Cote “wanted her done so “but for work” would have and Wayne Whitney Anthony (orally), J. Pev- 39 rehiring drug test.” the See failure of erada, Libner, Higbee, McTeague, MacAd- 66-A(7). Northern ar- Great M.R.S.A. § am, Watson, for Topsham, employ- Case & Division, and before gued Appellate to the ee. reemployment drug us, failure of a that the The com- employment. of test is a refusal Woodcock,Jr., (orally), Weather- John A. is situation pany that Cote’s contends Woodcock, bee, Woodcock, Burlock Ban- & par- to employee’s failure analogous to an gor, employer. for independent medical examina- ticipate in an ROBERTS, WATHEN, C.J., (sec- and Before treatment tion of medical or refusal GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, and injury COLLINS to 65); employee’s intentional tion an RUDMAN, 61); employee’s JJ. refusal (section himself an approved rehabilitation to with an comply
ROBERTS, Justice. 87); employee’s crimi- plan (section and an 102-A). (section 39 M.R.S.A. Paper nal Company appeals conduct Great Northern argues 61, 65, 87, company The 102-A. Appellate the from a of Division decision §§ conduct, in the aforemen- that as by Cote’s affirming the denial the Workers’ Com- situations, ac- deliberate constitutes petition for tioned pensation of its Commission attempt employer’s frustrates the alleged Betty J. tion that benefits that reduction of
59
to ameliorate the
public
burden of workers’ com-
the
by recog
interest is best served
pensation.
nizing
statutory rights
employer
the
of the
and, thus,
the
serving
also
common sense
previously rejected
We
argu-
a similar
policy
ensuring safety in
workplace.
of
the
ment in
Georgia-Pacific Corp.,
Cousins v.
Compare
employee’s
the
refusal
to take
(Me.1991),
The is: by benefits the employee amount the would Judgment affirmed. have if received she had returned to work. WATHEN, C.J., GLASSMAN, and RUDMAN, JJ., and
CLIFFORD
concurring.
COLLINS, Justice, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the court’s
opinion which
develops
employ-
further
the
position
ee
adopted
oriented
we
in Cousins
BUREAU OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
(Me.1991).
v. Georgia-Pacific,
offers the a “suitable to his condition,”
physical employee the must ac
cept penalties suffer it or the of the act. Co., (Me.
Keene v. Fairchild 593 655 A.2d
1991). question There is the no that em
ployee to to and that wanted return work pass
she knew she would have to a reem
ployment drug test before she could be Nonetheless,
reinstated. she to elected illegal drugs drugs
take those and were In
detected when she was bal tested.
ancing employee’s illusory “right” an to illegal drugs against employer’s
use the 66-A,
rights under section it is clear that