In dismissing the employee, the employer relied on its zero tolerance approach to drug and alcohol use in the workplace. However, the key factor influencing the Commission’s decision was the absence of any evidence establishing a link between the employee’s positive drug test and the ferry accident. There was no proof that the employee was “impaired” at the time of the accident, meaning the employer could not rely on its zero tolerance approach.
It is important to consider the issue of drug use versus impairment from the perspective of key stakeholders in employee relations and human resources.
For employers, addressing drug and alcohol use in the workplace is all about managing risk. The risk of an impaired employee causing or suffering from a workplace accident, the risk to other employees and/or members of the public, the risk of property damage and the risk of reputational damage to the employer’s business. The key issue here is whether the employee is fit for work regardless of their drug and/or alcohol consumption.
Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, Dr. Tamsin Short of Eastern Drug and Alcohol Service, specialises in alcohol and other drugs. Tamsin believes it is crucial for employers to consider the possible reasons why employees are using, and potentially abusing, alcohol and other drugs. Tamsin suggests a crucial element in creating a sound Drug and Alcohol Policy is to identify possible work related factors that may cause employees to turn to drugs, such as workplace culture, pressure to perform and setting unrealistic and unreasonable deadlines.
Any consideration of an employer’s drug and alcohol policy must involve a consideration of the methods the employer intends to implement in testing its employees. According to Bryce Dick, Managing Director of the Australian Drug Detection Agency, urinalysis accounts for around 85% of Australian workplace drug testing, with saliva (oral fluid) testing accounting for the remaining 12- 15%. Bryce considers the key differences between urine and oral testing include the following:
Unions have long argued against employee drug testing in favour of protecting employee privacy. The debate centres on the validity of drug testing in the workplace as a reasonable means for increasing employee safety. The unions submit that while neither urine nor oral testing methods test directly for impairment, a method that tests for recent consumption only (i.e. oral testing) is more likely to identify someone who is impaired. The argument follows that any method of testing that goes beyond testing impairment (and detects historical drug usage) is not aimed at ensuring employee safety and is an invasion of privacy.
Action Plan :
VeriSure Insurance Brokers are Specialists Brokers and can assist you in this area.
Simply contact us and one of our Senior Brokers will be in touch with you.
Our Difference is Your Guarantee
Your WH&S Consultant :
ISR Services Pty Ltd is a VeriSure Platinum Partner and preferred independent Specialist for Work Health and Safety advice.
For FURTHER INFORMATION and to contact Jeff Puckeridge directly.