During the past twenty years, extensive research has been conducted concerning the judgmental processes of labor arbitrators. Previous research, sometimes referred to as policy capturing, attempted to identify the criteria or standards used by arbitrators to support their decisions. Much of the research was qualitative. Due to the categorical nature of the dependent variables, log-linear models such as logit regression have been used to examine decisional relationships in more recent studies. The decision cues used by arbitrators in 249 published alcohol- and drug-related arbitration cases were examined. The justifications for arbitrators' decisions were fitted into Carroll Daugherty's "seven tests" of just cause. The dominant cues were proof of misconduct, the appropriateness of the penalty, and the business necessity of management's action. Foreknowledge of the rule by the grievant and the consequences of a violation, equal treatment of the grievant, and an appropriate investigation by management were also important decision cues. In general, grievants in alcohol and drug arbitration cases fared as well as grievants in any other disciplinary arbitrations. However, when the cases were analyzed based on the legal status of the drug, illicit drug users were at a considerable disadvantage.