A place for workplace drug testing

Drug testing for workplaces is one of the modern growth industries.

Spurred by health and safety legislation, and sometimes productivity concerns, more employers are preparing policies, implementing tests and acting on them.

Among those reviewing and consolidating policies is the Dunedin City Council.

Staff are being asked to consider a proposed new alcohol-and-other-drug policy, which details procedures for random and targeted testing for illicit substances.

As council community life general manager Graeme Hall said, the council had an obligation to provide a safe workplace.

The laws around drug testing generally allow for pre-employment screening, they can be instituted for "reasonable cause" and random testing is possible in safety-sensitive areas.

The "reasonable cause" provision has been around for many years and, as listed by Mr Hall, this could be invoked after outbreaks of violence in the workplace, excessive lateness, changes in personality or appearance, bloodshot eyes or intense anxiety or panic attacks. No doubt, there are areas for dispute here but the principle is established, as has the standard that drug tests can be taken after accidents or "near misses".

More problematic is random testing because of doubts about what are the safety-critical areas and because the intrusion on privacy is so substantial.

When the conflicting demands of safety verses privacy and "bodily integrity" are balanced, nevertheless, safety is the obvious winner.

That includes the safety of the particular employee concerned, of other staff and of the public.

It was in 2004 that the Employment Court backed Air New Zealand's random drug testing of those in "safety-sensitive positions", concluding these were where employees exposed themselves or others to risk of injury. That included pilots, maintenance workers and managers making safety decisions.

It did not include payroll staff and many desk jobs. Four years later jockey Lisa Cropp challenged racing industry random testing all the way to the Supreme Court.

The court went so far as to say that random drug tests were actually necessary so that jockeys were deterred from taking drugs.

Race-day safety would thereby not be compromised.