drug tests at work

Ok we have established that say for example THC is in your sytem, how is the increased risk proven, as we have also estblished such a drug remains detectable long after it is 'active'?

You are still in an increased risk group. as you do not know when that influence will no longer exist. The chances are you have come to work with some influence. Wever you are still under the influence is irrelevant. You are still at an increased risk.

Since when did that make it an enforcable contractual term? lol! has such a case ever even been tested in a UK court?

Must be, seeing as it is used all the time after incidents, in many many professions.
 
You are still in an increased risk group. as you do not know when that influence will no longer exist. The chances are you have come to work with some influence. Wever you are still under the influence is irrelevant. You are still at an increased risk.

Like I said a stance such as this has very wide ramifactions, you could find any reason to lable an individual 'an increased risk' therefore you are not only discriminating aginst someone who may have been intoxicated 'at some point', but you are opening the doors for an employer to pull a reason they are a 'risk' out of a pot of generic risks, and sack them on that basis.


Must be, seeing as it is used all the time after incidents, in many many professions.

Not good enough I'm afraid, you are just making assumption based on opinion.
 
Like I said a stance such as this has very wide ramifactions, you could find any reason to lable an individual 'an increased risk' therefore you are not only discriminating aginst someone who may have been intoxicated 'at some point', but you are opening the doors for an employer to pull a reason they are a 'risk' out of a pot of generic risks, and sack them on that basis.

No you can't as it still has to be inside the frame work of duty of care and the laws around it.

Not good enough I'm afraid, you are just making assumption based on opinion.

And your assumption that is illegal is based on?
At least my stance is widely used bot random testing and after accidents and has been for many years.
 
Last edited:
No you can't as it still has to be inside the frame work of duty of care and the laws around it.



And your assumption that is illegal is based on?

I'm sorry I just dont see your point - to word it another way:

If alcahol stayed in the system in the same way that THC does, and alcahol testing was as unsophisticated as the THC test;

Would you agree that an employee should loose thier job if they went out for 10 pints on a friday night, on the basis they would be unfit for work on the folowing monday?
 
Would you agree that an employee should loose thier job if they went out for 10 pints on a friday night, on the basis they would be unfit for work on the folowing monday?

Yes, because you can't prove you are fit for duty or when you became fit for duty. The contract would also clearly state this.
 
And your assumption that is illegal is based on?
At least my stance is widely used bot random testing and after accidents and has been for many years.

I didn't say it would be illegal, I implied that it is my belief that, if it were to be tested in court, it would unlawfull, as in it would be deemed an unfair contratual term and would therefore be unenforcable.

but inlight of the fact you do not have any example and that I dont belive there is any example, we can olny speculate on that.
 
Within the context of duty of care laws.

So no, there is no discrimination.

My understanding of duty of care, its quite a grey are, and Im pretty sure it dosent involve discriminating aginst individuals 'on the off chance' they may be unfit.

Please point me to the relevant part of this duty of care law.
 
Duty of care is about taking action against foreseeable and controllable risks. Drug use (any type legal or none) is very foreseeable and testable

Casual use is only 7 days. Not weeks or months.
 
Last edited:
Too bloody right too, I don't want someone working with me putting my performance/job in jeopardy because he likes to get high in the evenings and on weekends.

Rather than the complete security of someone who likes a solid drink at the weekend, or enjoys a couple of bottles of wine with the wife on a Wednesday?

I think it's selfish personally to expect to be treated differently because you do take drugs. If you treat everyone with an even hand (which the contract of employment does) then it no longer discriminates as everyone is at the same level of understanding. If drugs were legal, then I'd concur that it would be unfair, however, it's entirely up to the employer to enforce, legally, whatever rules they can (within the law) onto their work force.

Agreed, I think it's ridiculous to expect different treatment, but I'm guessing you don't mean what I mean. I think it's ridiculous that people are punished for choosing a less addictive, less physically and socially damaging, less toxic drug that causes less social friction and less violence amongst its users over the drug that's not illegal because it's taxed so heavily, all because misinformation and ignorance have been used to back up the claim that one is fine and the other is wrong.

I would no more get stoned off my face the night before work than I would go on a bender until early morning, because it would seriously impact upon my ability to do my job and in my current profession it would put patients at risk. I wouldn't severely hamper my mental state with anything if I didn't have a day and two nights to get over it before I was due to work next. As it is, I used to really enjoy smoking cannabis, but I quit to safeguard my career - there's few stronger zero-tolerance policies for drug use than you'll find in NHS employment, but I find now that I drink more than I used to, and I know it's doing much more damage to me than when I used to smoke cannabis instead.

I've taken drugs, both legal and otherwise, for a good portion of my life. I've never been in trouble for it, never seen my performance at work or uni or in any other aspect of my life suffer for it. I've never committed a violent crime beyond public brawling, and the few times that's come my way it's been strictly in self-defence with people who'd been drinking. I've never driven a car while high or drunk, nor operated machinery (heavy or, more relevant to my current profession, technical) nor acted in any way that puts anybody but myself at risk. This is true for many, many more people than most of the population realises - as mentioned earlier in this thread, a third of people from whom blood samples were taken tested positive for cannabis. Considering that cannabis metabolytes are detectable in urine for about twice as long as they are in blood, that means even those tested who weren't regular users must have taken cannabis in the last 3 days, maximum. Cannabis is everywhere, and yet society as a whole has managed to avoid collapsing in on itself.
 
Surely the only legislation is employment law - if you have signed an employment contract stating that an employer has a zero-tolerance drugs policy, and that if you fail a drug test you will be dismissed, why is any other legislation required?

From Direct.Gov:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/HealthAndSafetyAtWork/DG_10026594
Drug testing and your rights

Your employer may decide to test for drugs in employees. To do this, however, they need employee consent. This should normally be given where your employer has grounds for testing you under a full contractual occupational health and safety policy. The policy should be set out in your contract of employment or in the company handbook.

[...]

You can't be made to take a drugs test, but if you refuse when your employer has good grounds for testing you under a proper occupational health and safety policy you may face disciplinary action, including being sacked.

If you can be sacked for refusing, surely you can be sacked for failing if your contract states this?

(No, the page doesn't state that explicitly, but neither does it say the opposite and that was just a very quick Google.)

EDIT:

"Fair Reasons for Dismissal"
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Dismissal/DG_175834
Your conduct

If your employer has dismissed you because of your conduct, it usually means you have broken one or more of the terms of your employment. For example:

* continually missing work
* poor discipline
* drug or alcohol abuse
* theft or dishonesty

Following the comment on "terms of employment" - if your contract states that one term of your employment is that you do not fail a drug test, and then you do....
 
Last edited:
so what would heppen to someone who had been over to Amsterdam for a weekend and got tested the week after ? they have done nothing illegal


took the words out of my mouth, drug testing at work is a breach of human rights and freedom, if there is a job out there that really insists of employing people who dont drink or smoke weed then there should be ADVANCED warning and lots of money as your simply asking someone to live thier entire life around a job and miss out on all the fun that life offers.


if someones doing the job OK on weed whats the problem? if thier not doing it properly sack them i dont see the problem?
 
Never mind your opinion, where is the legislation?

Racal Services vs. Flockhart EAT 701/00: the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that the dismissal of a safety critical trackside worker who tested positive for cannabis had been 'fair', and that this was the only conclusion open to an Employment Tribunal. In addition, on-duty consumption of drugs or present impairment is likely to constitute a legitimate ground for dismissal even when there are not these kinds of safety considerations.

Mathewson vs. RB Wilson Dental Laboratory [1998] IRLR 512: a dental technician purchased some cannabis during his lunch hour for his personal use and was arrested and later fined. He admitted the offence to his employers immediately and was summarily dismissed. There was no suggestion that the employee took cannabis while at work. The tribunal held his dismissal was fair because it fell within the band of reasonable responses and this decision was upheld on appeal.

Booth vs. Southampton Airport Ltd., EAT Case No. 39214/81, IDS Brief, December 2002: an air traffic controller was dismissed for off-duty cannabis use. This was held to be a fair dismissal even though there was no evidence it affected his work in any way. The employer justified the dismissal by referring to the importance of preserving public confidence in the service.

O'Flynn vs. Airlinks The Airport Coach Company [2002] UKEAT (15th March 2002): an employee was dismissed after testing positive for cannabis in a random drug test. She later appealed and the appeal was dismissed as she agreed she was aware of the company drug and alcohol policy which states inter alia that it is considered gross misconduct to be found with drugs in the system while at work and that random drug testing would take place.
 
Last edited:
We also have the Transport and works Act 1992 and it states that certain jobs it is illegal to work under the influence of drugs and alcholo.

this has lead to many companys introducing drug testing to ensure they comply with due diligence. To avoid legal ramifications.
 
Thats not legsilation, its results from employment tribunerals, not even a proper court.

Wrong, it is good enough

Recent case law
emerging from the Employment Appeal Tribunalwould suggest that there is little tolerance for drug use even where it does not impact on an employee's performance at work:
Racal Services vs. Flockhart EAT 701/00: the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that the dismissal of a safety critical trackside worker who tested positive for cannabis had been 'fair', and that this was the only conclusion open to an Employment Tribunal. In addition, on-duty consumption of drugs or present impairment is likely to constitute a legitimate ground for dismissal even when there are not these kinds of safety considerations.

Mathewson vs. RB Wilson Dental Laboratory [1998] IRLR 512: a dental technician purchased some cannabis during his lunch hour for his personal use and was arrested and later fined. He admitted the offence to his employers immediately and was summarily dismissed. There was no suggestion that the employee took cannabis while at work. The tribunal held his dismissal was fair because it fell within the band of reasonable responses and this decision was upheld on appeal.

Booth vs. Southampton Airport Ltd., EAT Case No. 39214/81, IDS Brief, December 2002: an air traffic controller was dismissed for off-duty cannabis use. This was held to be a fair dismissal even though there was no evidence it affected his work in any way. The employer justified the dismissal by referring to the importance of preserving public confidence in the service.

O'Flynn vs. Airlinks The Airport Coach Company [2002] UKEAT (15th March 2002): an employee was dismissed after testing positive for cannabis in a random drug test. She later appealed and the appeal was dismissed as she agreed she was aware of the company drug and alcohol policy which states inter alia that it is considered gross misconduct to be found with drugs in the system while at work and that random drug testing would take place.

Where is this duty of care law you speak of?
• Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 – creates a statutory duty on the part of employers to protect their employees' health, safety and welfare in the workplace;
• Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 – obliges employers to conduct assessments of health and safety risks to their employees and third parties;
• Transport and Works Act 1992 – creates a criminal offence for certain workers, including drivers and conductors on buses or trains, to work under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In these circumstances, if the employer has not exercised 'due diligence' in ensuring that the employee is not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, he or she is also guilty of a criminal offence;
• Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act 2007 – creates the new offence of corporate manslaughter, which means an organisation can be prosecuted for the reckless death of a person where a duty of care exists.
 
Last edited:
We also have the Transport and works Act 1992 and it states that certain jobs it is illegal to work under the influence of drugs and alcholo.

this has lead to many companys introducing drug testing to ensure they comply with due diligence. To avoid legal ramifications.

Again you are side stepping the debate, the debate is not if someone is unfit to work- they should be delt with accordingly - no one here is arguing against that.

The debate is that the methods used are unfair, and by you own admission are "unworkable".

:confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom