Hello All,

We work in a Warehousing environemt in a 24h business and we're looking at the introduction of an Alcohol (initially) and potentially Druig testing programme.

My key areas for concern are warehousing staff and especially FLT drivers and those that use Ride on Pallet trucks.

My question is, can we focus our teeting programme on these higher risk employees, or do we, as our HR manager is suggesting, need to include the entire business in the programme so we don't descriminate against anyone. My feeling is that we can focus the programme.

Just wondered what others might already do.

Thanks for any responses

Andy

Is the workforce unionised? If so you will find the HR manager has legitimate concern about discriminatory policies where only one group are the subject of focus

I have worked in companies where the "random" selection aspect covered everyone from the CEO to the cleaner, others where it was designated to high risk employees e.g. machine operatives/drivers and others where even though driving was identified as a risk the sales reps and senior managers were excluded from the policy (as was the drinks bar in the customer dining room)

It is an easier pitch to the workforce if everyone is seen as equal

Does you business have a hsitory of accidents and incidents where substance imparement was believed to be a contributory factor? If not why upset employee relations and add cost

And don't forget if you are using the roadside limits these vary by age and UK location

Thank you both,

No, we are not unionised, No we do not have nay evidence of a specific issue in this area.

We do also carry out contracting work for the retail sector meaning we work night shifts on site and there are suspesions in this srea, though no evidence as yet. Fortunately, most of the site workforce is sub-contractor so the whole HR issue does not really apply. If we suspect someone is under the influence of anything, we can turn them away at the site gate. On top of this, we have a fledgling distribution arm to the warehousing business and we have just had an agency driver pulled over, breathalised and basically taken away. He was drinking in the Cab !!!!

Andy

We do random across the business or reasonable doubt where required for drugs. We also carry out 10 random alcohol tests per Region for the business.

However at our distribution centre we carry out an alcohol test on everyone once a month on a random date and test after accident/incidents involving MHE.

We also test for drugs for employees that will be trained up as MHE operators before the training even starts. We test after each accident and incident also. Anyone involved in the incident would be tested such as a pedestrian as an example if they were suspected to have contributed towards what happened.

All of this has been put in our company policy book by HR and approved by our legal team.

We used to use an external company previously but have brought it inhouse and the testers have all been trained to carry out the tests.

We are not unionised either.

Without breaching data protection some of the incidents where MHE has had a crash bang whallop and caused extensive damage to th eracking system the drug test results were very interesting!

Doesn't this have to be done by an external indepent company. Also if it is not in the persons contract then they do not have to submit to having the test or giving an samples of hair etc.

First level screening can be conducted by a suitably trained and equipped employee.

The "evidential" is normally provided by an independent external so that there is no come back on the employer in the event of an employment tribunal being held

It would not necessarily be written in to contract other than as reference to company policy - even if someone refuses to sign up to a new policy continuing to attend work after a period it is under UK employment law considered acceptance

I fail to see why focussing testing on particular high-risk roles is open to any claim about discrimination.  Can someone that thinks it might be elaborate on that please.

It seems to me contrary to much of health and safety practice to say that having identified a specific hazard (operators of specific dangerous machinery being unfit through drugs or alcohol) it's necesary to apply a control measure (random testing) to every employee in the business.

My company has people that do work on or near the line on railways.  We do drug and alcohol testing on staff working in the rail sector differently to those that are not doing work on or near the line.  Is that really illegal discrimination? 

'No person can be forced to provide a sample of urine, hair, saliva or blood for any purpose. However, if a person has a contractual obligation to provide a sample, and refuses to do it, courts have ruled that, in certain circumstances that can be grounds for dismissal.'

Taken from the TUC guide

Railway works come under their own rule book for many H&S aspects - intoxication, Hi-Vis, PPE - as a provider you are merely meeting client requirements so no discrimination could be called

More generally companies tend to focus upon site operations rather than total business activity when developing D&A policies with some grafting their transport and even contractors in to the policy.

Typically this policy then ignores as "low risk" those behind the wheel of other company vehicles (Senior managers etc.) used away from site.

Personally I do not perceive a national sales manager clocking up 50,000+ miles a year on the road at 5am having entertained a customer the night before to be a "low risk"

Originally Posted by: RayRapp

When I worked in the railway industry the D&A policy of the organisation applied to everyone who was classed as 'safety critical' including managers of those staff. Plus managers may have to access operational areas within the railway infrastructure as part of their job so why should they not be subjected to the same D&A regime?

Who said they wouldn't be?  I certainly didn't say that, and we don't test managers differently to workers, but we do test rail sector people differently to (say) office-based secretarial staff, and it would seem to me reasonable to test (say) warehouse staff driving motorised machinery differently to (say) office-based secretarial staff.  Yest some in this thread have said things like "the HR manager has legitimate concern about discriminatory policies where only one group are the subject of focus".

Why must you test everyone rather than those who cause a risk if they are intoxicated?

If you had some staff at risk of head injury (perhaps those that are working on a building site) would you insist every single employee (including all those secretaries back at head office) wear hard-hats all the time they are at work?  Or would you make the group who are actually at risk the subject of focus?  We require hard-hats on site, but here I am in head office not wearing one - in fact, no-one in my sight is wearing one! Discrimination!

Statements like "If you target high risk roles, you are implying that it is acceptable in low risk roles" are bogus.  We target PPE at people on site.  Yes, it is completely acceptable to work in the office without a hard-hat and light eye protection - even though I might bang my head, or get something in my eye. 

In my opinion, the hazards arising from an intoixicated filing clerk are rather less than those arising from a intoxicated FLT driver.  It seems to me legitimate to have different controls and processes for staff for whom there are different levels of risk.

Edited by user 06 November 2017 14:06:54(UTC)  | Reason: changed 'pissed' to 'intoxicated' because the system doesn't like words meaning drunk starting in 'p

Moving away from the visible dangers of vehicles and equipment any intoxicated employee presents a "business risk" in the broadest sense

Simply clicking on an e-mail link could jeapordise IT systems vital to the undertaking as exampled by the recent malware that impacted not only the NHS but several transport providers and manufacturers

Monies could be paid to unscrupulous scammers reporting new banking details instead of legitimate suppliers

Quotations could have the decimal point in the wrong place loosing potential business

All these happen to sober, intelligent employees - add drugs or alcohol to the mix....

I can see why you would want drugs and alcohol policy and I agree that it should really be a focus on safety critical areas but there are several issues:

1. What levels of drugs and alcohol would you tolerate? Note if you go for zero then false positives become very likely.
2. What sort of appeals procedure will you have? Will a positive test result in instant dismissal with no appeal or would it just result in a warning etc?
3. Would you include prescription medicines? There are drugs that can be prescribed by a doctor but will impair someone safety at work. Do you ban those as well?

I am finding it quite amusing that only people at the 'sharp end' do anything important enough that they should never be under the influence.  Roundtuit has identified one example of 'business risk' but there are many others, which can have safety consequences.  We all know that most safety problems start with poor decision made in offices and meeting rooms.  Clearly alcohol and drugs impair the ability to make decisions.  Having said that, I don't think the limits set for people in offices need to be as strict as those at the sharp end, which is where risk assessment and clear rules come in.

But, the main question has to be 'why are testing?'  I really hope it is not to catch people who may have turned up to work under the influence so that we can sack them.  I think it should be as part of a more wide ranging interest in the wellbeing of our employees.  If people are arriving at work under the influence it suggests that they have a problem.  The aim is to help them to solve that problem through whatever process is likely to work for them.  Remaining in and/or returning to work may be a key part of their treatement and rehabilitation. 

Originally Posted by: John J

Originally Posted by: johnmurray

The think that struck me as "strange" was the provision of a urine sample.

A male was required to have some with him when the sample was being provided, a female was allowed to use a toilet stall.....

Lack of information to employees is also a trcky problem.

Taking a few tablets of a proprietary pain killer (paracetamol/codeine) will give a positive reading.

Going out on friday night and having several pints won't help a Monday-morning test.

A hair sample will give information going-back several months.

And most management skive the tests with no punishment, even though they have been seen staggering out of their company car and falling into their office..

Except railways, where they get escorted to the door with no car keys.

I'd avoid urine testing and stick to instant drug and alcohol testing. It avoids embarrasment for all concerned.

It also avoids any delay in addressing any 'for cause' incidents.

Your policy should address everyone from top to bottom if you want to have any integrety (although your HGV drivers will be required to pass at a lower limit). Anyoner in the business could make an error under the influence and something in a document could cost money or compromise safety.

John

You've got a few choices:

Urine

Mouth swab

Blood

Hair.

Urine is the usual choice. Most testers will insist upon the sample being given within their view. Except for females. Not very "equal". Almost certainly unlawful from an equality viewpoint.

Mouth swab is next.

Blood and hair give knowledge of long-term drug and alcohol use, and medical problems as well, if desired...and from which a historical-use profile can/will be drawn up.

Most companies contracting the tests accept the historical data if offered.

There is an organisation covering the D/A test process in Europe http://www.ewdts.org/ewdts-guidelines.html

Note the guidelines...it has been noted, within the UK Union community (sic) that few of these processes are taken "seriously" within the UK.

Note the evidencial chain requirements.

Note your Data security requirements under UK law for both personal and medical information...no, the office tea lady can not have access to the info...