Drug Testing in the Workplace
According to the 2012 United Nations World Drug Report, New Zealand has comparably high levels of illicit drug taking, particularly cannabis use. There have also been serious concerns highlighted around the use of synthetic cannabis products.
Not surprisingly, this is worrying for employers wanting to maintain standards and safety in the workplace. This issue creates a conflict between an employee’s right to privacy, and the rights and obligations of employers to provide a safe, healthy and efficient working environment. If you are an employer, and drug use is a concern in your workplace, what can you do?
Drug and Alcohol Policy
Having an effective drug and alcohol policy is important for employers. This policy, generally found in the employment contract or its accompanying guidelines, specifies the rights and obligations of employers and employees regarding the misuse of alcohol and the use of illicit drugs. The policy should specify the consequences of attending work under the influence of alcohol or drugs (including synthetic cannabis which, although not illegal, may impact on an employee’s ability to safely carry out his role), and any relevant testing regime. An employer may require pre-employment testing and there is a wide range of substances that can now be detected.
Random or “suspicionless” testing is permitted only in safety sensitive areas of a workplace. The Employment Court noted in a case involving Air New Zealand that pilots, aircraft engineers and flight planners, as employees in safety sensitive areas, might be the subject of random testing whilst HR advisers, in-house lawyers and payroll staff would not. Clearly, there is grey area when determining whether an employee works in a safety sensitive area. In any event, provision for random testing must be recorded in the drug and alcohol policy and provided to the employee, if it is to be implemented.
Reasonable Cause Testing
Where a workplace environment is not safety sensitive, a drug and alcohol policy may specify that an employee will be subject to testing if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an employee is impaired at work. Reasonable grounds may include; immediately after an accident or near miss, or where drug use is witnessed. The reasonable grounds must be specifically related to the behaviour of the employee to be tested, and a general suspicion that employees are taking drugs is insufficient. An employee being tested must be presented with any evidence against him or her - hearsay evidence should be treated cautiously as generally this may not be sufficient.
Importantly for employers, a positive drug result will not be taken into account in determining damages for unjustified dismissal if there were no reasonable grounds for the test. In other words, the mere fact that an employee turns out to be a drug user will not remedy any procedural impropriety by the employer. We highly recommend that you contact us prior to implementing any testing so that we can provide advice tailored to your workplace and the particular situation.
Drug Testing Procedure
The most common procedure for drug testing is to have a preliminary “screening test” that results in an instant negative/positive result. An employee who returns a positive result should undergo a laboratory confirmation test. The confirmation test is important because the screening test is designed to be highly sensitive and may return wrongly positive results - poppy seeds and some forms of cold and flu medication may increase the chances of incorrect screening test results.
Provided that the delicate relationship between employee privacy and employer standards and safety is balanced, drug and alcohol policies benefit both parties in the workplace. If you have any concerns regarding this issue, or require assistance with drafting or implementing a workplace drug & alcohol policy, please contact Turner Hopkins.
“I have used Turner Hopkins for my legal services for over eight years. I have always found their level of service excellent and their work to a very high standard. I have used various lawyers at their firm for various businesses I have been involved with and have always had very positive experiences. I would highly recommend them.”
“John is very easy to talk to, he never makes you feel dumb, and never makes you feel like you are wasting his time for asking questions. He explains everything very clearly, every time. John's support staff are also very efficient and so easy to deal with. No detail is missed when dealing with them. My husband and I are fans of them all :)”
“I can't speak highly enough of Jenny. She got everything done in a timely manner and when my ex-husband threw a spanner in the works at the eleventh hour she got the required documentation to his lawyers and settlement back on track.”
“I have struggled with different legal firms over the years, but over the past few years I have engaged with Turner Hopkins with various requirements from personal relating to wills, family trust, property settlements and contracts through to commercial engagements including employment advice, commercial lease agreements and general legal advice. I have engaged with a number of the people in the firm and always found them professional, punctual in their responses and very sound in the advice provided.”
“To Michael Robinson – I wanted to thank you and your colleagues for many years of excellent service to the Bank. You have an outstanding business that has proved to be one of the most reliable and ethical businesses that Collections have dealt with in the almost 9 years I was with the Bank.”