9th January 2014, 02:13 PM
Mike.T. Wrote:You can refuse to undergo a drugs and alcohol test but then you're not allowed to work on site. Some Archaeological companies will also count this, or a test failure, as a black mark against an individual.
Yes that is what happens, but if we all had solicitors backing us that would not happen (I think) due to our legal rights.
The Drugs Scope independent report on random drugs testing stated among other things, that 1) refusal to take a test cannot be taken as a positive result or admission of guilt.
2) testing should be for impairment not prescence
Furthermore it isn't against the law to have controlled substances in your body.
And, the important factor, the reason why the HSE and government guidelines (see direct.gov on drugs and alcohol policies) are against drugs screening and instant dismissal, is that we all have a legal right to a private life.
I think its article 9 of the human rights act. Its the part that stops people filming us in our homes, employees keeping tabs on employees in their own time, e.g. surveillance and then sacking them if they don't like what they find.
The Drugscope report stated that random testing for presence without a prior reason to do so (e.g. the individual was drunk at work, alcohol on breath etc) definitely breaks this law as it is prying into what the employees do in their own private life.
Also, remember the recent case of a black list containing certain information being sold and passed around the construction industry....this was illegal because people have rights.
If i understand correctly, you can't take a record of say people union membership, whether they are a 'trouble maker' or indeed that they had taken illicit drugs etc or use such a list to decide whether someone can work for you...........its called discrimination and its against the law.
Insurance companies don't car about breaking discrimination laws, they are happy to be taken to court and pay fines when they have to as they make so much profit from breaking the law as they tend to get away with it for extended periods..............e.g. sex, age discrimination etc.
Screening your workforce for passed drug use then sacking them is discrimination. It has nothing to do with safety, no matter how many times someone says so.
The guidelines for a companies drug and alcohol policy goes along the lines of 1) If there is a reason to think there is a problem with an individual, investigate but in a sensitive way.
2) Work with the individual, guide them and encourage them to seek professional help.
3) Disciplinary procedures including termination of contract should be seen as a last resort and should follow the guidelines for such, i.e. the right to appeal etc.
So tell me how can it be legal to screen your workforce then sack them based on a criteria decided by that company alone (not following published guidelines)?
To put the policies/ procedures in perspective, replace the alcohol/drug test with a test for STD's or indeed being HIV positive. Would it be legal for a construction company to screen all their employees for HIV then sack those that test positive with no right to appeal based on the fact that they are an increased safety risk?? Think about why this is illegal. Is it any different.
The common sense approach to testing for drugs and alcohol can be seen all around us. Ask yourselves why the police don't randomly screen people for drugs. Why don't all employers screen their staff? Why aren't say, doctors, magistrates, MP's or civil servants screened for drugs?
The military and police do screen for presence of drugs, but these are special cases because of the specific issues relating to those professions and not a general wooly factoid-based idea of 'safety'.