Posted By Brando Alcohol & Drugs testing ( A&D ) has been with many of us for some time but I feel slightly confused with some approaches. One company I work for uses the following basic approach: If you are tested and found positive for alcohol it may be gross misconduct if you are above the prescribed company limit ( which is the same as the UK driving limit ). Fine - no problem so far. If you are tested positive for drugs at any level you will probably get the sack. Even though you may not have taken any drugs for several days or even weeks( and when you did take them you may have been on holiday and not working ) and there noticable effects on your performance are long gone. Without getting into a moral discussion on drug use I find it rather difficult to support a process which punishes something someone has done in the past which does not effect what they are doing now. And if we are going to take that approach then perhaps we should do it for alcohol as well - but then everyone would get the sack I guess? Is it legal to sack or discipline someone for something which they have done but which does not effect their work? Thoughts? Brandon

Posted By M J Matthews Hi I have had some experience in this having had an employee who came into work under the influence of alcohol and prescribed drugs, we spoke to the EEF and found out that you cannot just dismiss them for gross misconduct but have to firstly look to arrange counselling etc, This really opened my eyes to ensuring that we had a firm policy for any future cases but it is very difficult to manage these cases as bad handling can lead to employment tribunals. Mick M

Posted By Adam Worth It’s an interesting debate and one the police have struggled with too. I used to work in breath alcohol detection and the basis for road side testing is that the level in your breath is indicative of levels in your blood; levels in your blood directly indicate the effect on your ability to carry out cognitive functions and so a ride side breath test gives an accurate picture of the effect of the alcohol on the individual. However; Cannabis, for example, can be detectable in urine for 1 month after chronic use – and a lot longer in the blood! This makes road side detection very tricky as the effects only last for few hours and are not related to reading in blood. Therefore how do you create a level for screening at roadside? Answers on a post card? However what we must note is that these are (rightly or wrongly) substances controlled by law – persons under the influence are indeed (at present) in breach of the law and therefore it should not matter how along ago the substance was taken. One last fact A think tank were asked to independently create a list with worst drug at the top and then listing various substances in order of ‘harm’ (this included health, social etc) Needless to say Alcohol was very near the top with cigarettes following closely behind. Other substances such as ‘e’ were much lower down the list! A question for you all does this sound like a sensible risk based approach to our health to you? Some food for thought anyway.

Posted By Adam Worth What drugs are these? We have a list of illegally classified drugs under UK law. Our employees are tested against these? I doubt very much the tablets you mention were Cocaine or Speed :) I'm a bit confused by that... do you mean the screener test gave a false positive or his country freely gives out class A drugs as a headache treatment? Lab testing is amazingly accurate and can identify the exact drug in minute quantities! I see there may be a bit of controversy if say I go to Amsterdam, for example, and the drug is legal???

Posted By Philip McAleenan The following short article of mine was published in an edited version in SHP some years ago, it still have relevance, Drugs’ testing is an invasive procedure, whether it involves taking body fluid samples or cutting hair, and invasive procedures beyond those necessary for surgical purposes or expressly sanctioned by proper laws, constitute an assault on the individual, no matter how minor the physical hurt caused. It further presumes a state of guilt with the onus on the individual to continually prove his/her innocence. Many policies state that the testing procedures have been developed for safety purposes. However such a proposition may be negated if the list of drugs that are to be tested for are “controlled” drugs, and therefore illegal, substances. Indeed a list must be developed in order for drugs screening to be effective as there is no single test that will detect all possible drugs in the body. Tests are drugs/chemical specific and therefore it is necessary to decide which are to be tested for. If an employee is told that they are to be tested for a particular drug (illicit or not) they are in effect being told that they are suspected of using that drug. There are many GP prescribed and proprietary medications that adversely effect performance and therefore safety, but by their omission from a company’s testing procedures, drugs screening policies are likely to become a policing operation by employers. If basic civil and human rights prohibits the State from conducting such screening operations on its citizens, why then should private companies be permitted such a function? Safety professionals should seek good practice for improving safety. In this regard, the correct approach is to set standards for safety and performance and to expect workers to meet those standards after appropriate induction and training has been provided. Where workers fail to meet the required standard (or appear likely to be unfit to do so) then the role of the manager is to work with the employee to determine why and to inform him/her of the requisite performance requirements (including abstinence from substances likely to impair performance, and to report the taking of medication that may do so). It is by setting the standards, monitoring performance and, where necessary, retraining or removing consistent under-performers that good safety practice is established without the infringement of human or civil rights. In these circumstances it is immaterial whether the under-performance is due to incompetence, medication or drug use, the approach is the same and is acceptable, in law and in principle. If any individual worker is involved in “illegal” activities, it is up to the police to collect the evidence and to prosecute, and there are internationally recognised standards controlling how this is to be done. It is not for employers and advocates of drug screening to subvert justice by adopting such highly irregular practices. Safety professionals must ensure that their concern for the safety and welfare of workers is holistic, far-seeking and ethical. regards, Philip

Posted By Jim Masson What would the situation be though if you were to introduce a policy of drugs testing those person(s) involved in a workplace accident / injury?

Posted By Liesel You also need to think about your industry. If Transport & Works Act 1992 applies being drunk (or under the influence of drugs) at work could well be an offence under that as well as anything else under the usual H&S legislatory framework. Details of alcohol limits and penalties are in the T&W Act S26-S28.

Posted By Alan Woodage Having been involved with D&A for a few years now I have seen all cases, from occasional cannabis use to Heroin Smoking Outside a Station While on shift and still wearing PPE!! This whole area is difficult and remains a fairly new area of our remit. My opinion is that if the employee is willing to engage in an illegal activity and break the laws of the country, then how can we trust there ability to operate within our own direction policies and procedures, with regard to there own safety and that of others? The most difficult thing to defend would be the Legal aspect of say an individual travelling within the EU, say Going to Holland and smoking cannabis at the weekend and then testing positive the next week. No illegal activity as stated above. All of my tests are carried out, with the first question being please inform me of any drugs, medications etc you have taken in the past 28 Days. this then gives the employee the opportunity to declare anything and this can be recorded. Then if positives are detected the medication can be referenced and cross checked. Remember most serious drug users will be prepared for testing, including secreting clean urine in there underwear or body cavities, and without carrying out Body searches how do you avoid that?? Hair sampling causes the biggest uproar normally and people then think you are trying to build DNA databases etc etc. Hair sampling is the only true way to get an accurate picture of long term substance use but really OTT for safety purposes. All said the point from all our positions is how do you defend a fatal accident due to an employee Drunk or Under the influence if you have no policy or procedure for assessing and checking there ability to carry out their duty safely?? Would you send a HGV Driver out who had not had a medical or EYE tests? NO So where is the difference, we take Urine samples to check blood sugars / diabetes in safety critical workers so why not Drugs and Alcohol. It is simple to me Nothing to Hide Nothing to worry about!