By D&A I am  assuming that you mean drugs and alcohol?  These sorts of policies have been discussed many times on this forum.

The general consensus has always been that you need to tread carefully when developing policies around this matter. Before you look at the mechanics of collecting samples you need to look at:

• Justification for the whole policy-why exactly do you need to collect this information and what you intend to do with it once it has been collected
• How you manage this information, which is personal data, who will you share it
• What are the consequences of an employee failing the test and what exactly is failing-what levels
• What do you do with employees that refuse to cooperate
• Do you retest  after a positive  result?
• How do you demonstration that the testing is fair and impartial?

Then you can look at the how you do the testing. I am assuming that you are not running an analytical lab and your are not a qualified analyst, so you will be using a proprietary test kit. How do you know that the test  kit any good? What about false  positives?

That’s just a start…

I predict that if you try to do this yourself, you will regret it.

If you really must do it, then involve an external specialist who will not only do the testing, but help you with your policies and communications.

Before heading off down the route of testing do you actuallly have a problem that needs addressing - is there a number of accidents / incidents / near-misses where drugs or alcohol were a contributory factor?

If this is customer pressure they should buy the company if they want to dictate its policies.

As Peter indicated there are many pitfalls - for cause? safety critical? limits?

I am still waiting to see a CEO dismissed (and without their golden parachute) in a similar manner to the poor Fork Lift Driver - both equally capable of being under the influence at work.

Another consideration is the impact on employees private lives - those who work trackside must be alcohol free meaning rotas are vital to ensuring employees know when they may not partake in their own time.

Conversley if your business relies upon short notice overtime working then you effectivley decrease the number of available workers available to be called in - this was raised by the Royal College of Nursing when it was being proposed the NHS adopetd zero limit.

You also need to carefully consider how to handle prescription medicines in the workplace - submitting a form to a line manager who then Googles "side-effects" will often see an extensive list of why the individual should not be in work (drug companies include every symptom recorded as opposed to a reduced list regarding the majority of patients treated due to possible litigation).

and don't forget as this will involve change to employment contract terms it needs agreement with any union(s), works council or collective employees representative body.

Originally Posted by: stevedm

all of the requirements fall under the conpliance with UK H&S regulation......the Misuse of drugs act 1971 and general requirement to comply with safety laws are part of every employment contract.

I find myself seeking a more in depth explanation of your post

Stevedm, like Roundtuit I think you should explain why you think the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is of any relevance whatsoever to this thread.

That Act is NOT a "relevant statutory provision" under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

I agree entirely that you cannot contract out of criminal liabilities, which actually means that it is not necessary for a Contract of Employment whether or not in writing to spell out "thou shalt comply with the law".

But this thread is not about whether the employer should stop their staff from consuming restricted drugs in the workplace at which point the 1971 Act would be relevant.

Whilst the hard line approach that you appear to be advocating is seemingly increasingly popular it is a recipe for poor industrial relations, and in my view HR should be taking the lead in deciding how to move any D&A policy forward EXCEPT (perhaps) in the very limited circumstances where health and safety law dictates a D&A regime for "safety critical" workers.

Not least for simply business reasons. Applying D&A programmes to an unnecessarily wide part of the workforce restricts the labour supply. How many employers want to avoid employing anyone who is not teetotal?

Even before you get to the issues of false positives for e.g. someone who has ingested poppy seeds from bread.

three visits / two dates - BUMP

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

and don't forget as this will involve change to employment contract terms it needs agreement with any union(s), works council or collective employees representative body.

The change in contract is required to make failure to submit to a test being a disciplinary matter. No employer can force any employee to submit to testing. Not submitting to a test is not a failure to cooperate with their employer under S7 of HSWA. All they can do is, within the contract of employment make failure to submit to the test a disciplinary matter and define the consequence for such a event. If it is not in the contract no action can be taken. The employer can use an 'assumed' positive test and invoke their immediate response arrangements, but they can't discipline them (or even 'dock' their pay) as a result. 

With regards to changing the contract, as has been mentioned any collective negotiation arrangements can be used to agree to the change for those people covered by that group, e.g. Union members but anybody not covered by those groups (non-union members) has to individually agree to the change in their own contract. 

Tony.

Absolutely none!