Good Morning All,

I'm in local government but would be interested in wider view on this subject too if you could spare the time.  There is a proposal within one team to introduce randon drug and alcohol testing; that's it, they don't have detail of what they're thinking or any evidence of incidents associated with D&A.  Elsewhere research has been undertaken to develop a draft policy and to undertake a benefit analysis considering safety critical roles and so on.  Main roles in-scope as I see them may include HGV drivers and construction trades.

What I'd like to know is what (if anything) others may have done, what challenges that involved, staff buy-in or dispute, advantages/disadvantages and/or whether the subject may have been dealt with with better guidance for managers and support mechanisms for staff.

Thanks.

I have had to implement random testing but only did so because there was a clear need for it.  We had to do it, the people subject to the testing knew exactly why we had to do it, and they all signed contracts agreeing to it.  They still complained about it though because it was disruptive of their working day. Being clear about the purpose of the testing is a critical first step without which you will just be entering a nightmare for no good reason.  Random testing is destructive of employee trust and productive of data protection problems.

I recommend the following informative booklet which goes into the practicalities of collecting and analysing samples as well as the legal issues (it may have been updated since the edition I list):

Hegerty, D. and Stallard, M. (2013) A Practical Guide to Drugs and Alcohol Testing

Hi Max

I agree with all the responses you have had to date

+ you need to think hard about what you mean by "safety critical".

D&A testing started in defined "safety critical" settings and has been backed up by legislative requirements. So, as example a member of the Board of Network Rail is very unlikely to be working in a "safety critical" environment except under very close supervision.

This doesn't mean that that the Board member shouldn't be subject to the same process as everyone else is an organisation decides on a blanket approach, rather than targeting only those actually doing "safety critical" work.

In simplistic terms "safety critical" means someone who is in an environment where mistakes could lead to multiple fatalties NOT one, or possibly two dead bodies.

So, the person maintaining the railway or driving an HGV is "safety critical", the person building a scaffold on a housebuilding site, or using that scaffold is NOT. Of course, if they fall it is critical to their safety!

If you go for the blanket approach some people will simply self-select out and go and work for someone else - similar result to mandating vaccination for anyone working in a care setting, including the visiting plumber.

I have introduced and assisted with the introduction of quite a few D&A policies over the past 15 years and not a lot has changed....kate is right making sure that the scope is clear is a key point...most of they policies I have introduced have for 'for cause'..i.e. only tested when there is clear requirement and that is listed in the company policy...supvervisor/ manager training and a clear independant testing process.

The exemption I always add is Identified safety critical employees who can be subject to random testing - all new staff subject to pre-employment testing.

About being in thier contract - it is already, the key parts come under the requirement to comply with H&S legislation, The Road Traffic Act, Substance Misuse...it is a myth that if it isn't specifically stated it doesn't apply, the only thing that happens if needed is the definition of gross misconduct changes...in most cases you don't need to do that as this is wefare and if an employee comes to you and declares a problem, then you help...if the fall off the wagon, then exit...consultation always, and HR do need to be involved because ultimately it affects recruitment and disciplinary process....as always with these things is relies on a very very solid investigative process, if you have gaps there you will fail...

1 of my clients has this in the staff handbook. And it's mentioned again in their contract of employment.

We have been asked by customers, (we have mobile engineers) to have tests performed when they arrive at client site. We've had 1 engineer refused entry because he looked like he was under the influence. And to be fair he was.

So we have targeted testing, we use a saliva test. If they fail, they are sent home and then they have to produce an official test showing no drugs in system after 7 days before they are permitted to return to work.

If we conduct random testing, we choose an engineer at random, say the 7th to walk through the door. We then offer them the choice to do the test or they can nominate any member of staff in the office to also receive a random test as well. Some do and some don't do this.

Then we offer them the box of test kits and they then select which test they do. Then they are the oly ones to touch the packet, or any of the test swabs etc. So there is no chance of any cross contamination