|
|
More Face Drug Tests at Work
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n581/a08.html
Newshawk: Duncan Eddy
Pubdate: Thu, 15 Apr 2004
Source: Marlborough Express (New Zealand)
Copyright: Independent Newspapers Limited 2004
Contact: laurab@marlexpress.co.nz
Website: http://www.marlboroughexpress.co.nz/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1139
Author: Staff Reporter
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm
(Drug Testing)
MORE FACE DRUG TESTS AT WORK
Workplace drug testing is becoming an increasingly common practice
in Marlborough.
More than a dozen companies in Blenheim and Picton are now
screening employees for drug and alcohol use, according to the
Institute of Environmental Science and Research ( ESR ).
The Employment Court has now also given Air New Zealand the right
to drug test its workers in a landmark case that has unions
worried other industries will follow suit.
However, the court ruled out random testing across the board,
saying Air New Zealand could not justify random testing of workers
in positions where safety was not critical and there had been
nothing to indicate drugs had been taken.
Chief Judge Tom Goddard and Judges Barrie Travis and Graeme Colgan
decided that in areas where the effects of drugs could have
catastrophic effects, safety overrode an employee's expectation of
privacy.
ESR workplace drug testing manager Shelli Turner, from Wellington,
said today 45 companies throughout the top of the South Island
were testing, with the forestry industry making up the bulk of
those.
Transport and construction companies were also among those likely
to use workplace testing in the area, she said, and the numbers
opting to do so were gradually increasing.
Marlborough Road Transport Association chairman Tony Duncan said
there appeared to be a move towards such testing across the
transport industry, which he supported.
"I think it's coming that we will have to write some sort of
testing ( regime ) into employment contracts as there's a real
move towards becoming more safety conscious."
Mr Duncan said smaller transport companies in Marlborough were
less likely to test employees because they tended to know their
staff better.
"But for larger companies who employ more staff, it is
definitely a safety issue and I believe there are some in
Marlborough which do test for drug and alcohol use now."
Marlborough Winegrowers spokesperson Stuart Smith said that while
he agreed with the Employment Court's decision, the wine industry
did not currently have a policy relating to drug and alcohol
testing.
"It's one of the few sensible decisions from the Employment
Court and personally I think all employees should be subject to
random testing. Best practice would say that when you go to
work you expect that person to not be under the influence,
especially those working with heavy machinery," he said.
Safe Air general manager Jeremy Remacha said today it was too
early to say how the decision would affect the Marlborough
aviation engineering company and he had yet to discuss the issue
with Air New Zealand management.
Safe Air is a subsidiary of Air New Zealand, raising the
possibility the court's decision could be extended to the
Marlborough company. Safe Air currently does not include
pre-employment drug testing.
The Employment Court ruling said it was reasonable to test
employees being transferred into positions where safety was a
factor and for random testing of those working in "safety
sensitive" areas.
Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union Marlborough-Nelson
organiser Alan Clarence said the union would hold talks with Safe
Air management to decide how the term "safety sensitive"
applied to the company.
"The decision has said that where you propose to drug test
any worker, the requirement for extensive consultation is there
and I guess that is a good thing. I understand that was
something that was lacking when Air New Zealand first proposed
this," Mr Clarence said.
Air New Zealand chief executive Ralph Norris said he was pleased
with the judgment which allowed the company to test for drugs
after an accident or near accident, or if it had cause to believe
an employee's dangerous behaviour was due to drugs.
Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union national secretary
Andrew Little said he was disappointed the court had not ruled out
random testing altogether. The union would consider an
appeal.
|
|
 

|