When Employees Lie Before and After Positive Drug Test

Urine Drug Test

The mining industry often serves as the groundbreaker in employment law and practices concerning drugs and alcohol use and testing in the workplace. The reason is simple: there is an exceedingly high risk of experiencing injury or a fatal accident in mining conditions. Though it is generally agreed that workers should be given more than one opportunity to prove themselves as not being drug users after testing positive on a drug test, there is always the question of what to do about people who intentionally cheat and are discovered to be cheating. Should an employee be allowed to keep a job if the drug and alcohol policy says that dismissal comes after testing positive two times but the employer discovers the person cheated on the first test?

There are dozens of ways that employees attempt to cheat drug tests. In one case a miner had smoked marijuana at a weekend party. He heard through the grapevine that his company would be conducting random drug tests that week, meaning the cannabis was likely to show up in a urine drug test. So he took elaborate steps to cheat. On the day of the drug test, he obtained a urine sample from a friend who would test negative for drugs, stored it in a pouch placed in his armpit to keep it warm, and ran a tube from the pouch to a valve placed in the appropriate place where he could make it appear that he was urinating. Keeping his back to the inspectors, he was able to supply clean urine for testing.1

The End of the Story

Though that does not sound like it supports drug testing, the end of the story makes a convincing case for maintaining random drug testing. The system worked like it was supposed to and the miner did not get advance notice that a drug test would take place. He failed that drug test.1 Eventually random drug testing catches the drug users and the drug cheats because people normally do not use drugs just once. After the drugs or alcohol are detected, what consequences should the miner face? Should he be dismissed for testing positive the first time or should he be sent to counselling? Most mining companies have a policy that gives employees two chances. The first time the employee is allowed to get counselling and return to work. The second time the employee is dismissed.

Now consider this twist: What if the employer discovered the employee was trying to cheat when the pouch of urine breaks (an unpleasant thought but it could happen)? That changes the situation because the person was purposely trying to deceive the employer, intentionally jeopardising workplace safety. Just recently, Fair Work Commission made it clear that it will not side with employees who lie to employers about their drug-taking. It is all about intent.

Broken Trust

In this case, a miner at Anglo American dismissed a miner in April 2013 for a first-time positive drug test. The company policy was dismissal after testing positive twice. The employee, Stephen Vaughan, filed a claim for unfair dismissal with the Fair Work Commission, pointing out the company normally issues a disciplinary warning and initiates performance management. As information about the claim was made public, it was learned that Vaughan had indicated on the pre-screening form that he took cold and flu tablets only. When drug tested, he tested positive for methylamphetamine. The screening was confirmed by a laboratory test which reported positive results for meth and amphetamines. A week later, Vaughan said he had taken an unknown substance at a party a day before completing the pre-screening form.2 Naturally, it would be difficult to believe that he did not know he was taking illicit drugs at the party.

The company dismissed Vaughan immediately, saying in a letter that it could no longer be confident that the worker would be honest in the future. Vaughan had worked for Anglo American for four years and had a good work record. Despite that, Fair Work upheld the dismissal because of the workers lack of openness.

There are several important points employers can take away from this Fair Work ruling. First, documentation of the administration of the drug and alcohol program is critical. Second, random drug testing is effective, but it works best when there is no advance warning that testing is going to occur at any particular time. Third, employers should assess each situation individually based on the circumstances. Ultimately, Fair Work’s ruling makes the statement that employers must be able to trust their employees to act in a way that maintains workplace safety. If that trust is broke, the employer has a right to act in an exceptional manner.

For all drug and alcohol test supplies and program documentation forms, consult with CMM Technology. With over 13 years of experience in supplying companies with drug and alcohol testing program necessities, employers are assured of getting top-of-the-line products that assist with meeting minimum legal and regulatory requirements.

This article has been taken from: http://www.cmm.com.au/articles/when-employees-lie-before-and-after-positive-drug-test/

A Social Enterprise Perspective of D&A Programs

Drug Testing

Drug and alcohol programs are quickly going beyond being workplace health and safety initiatives. As Australia battles the growing use of illicit drugs and increasing numbers of dangerous binge drinking episodes, all eyes are looking to employers as frontline intervention points because approximately 80 percent of the people who use these substances are employed. The implication is that workplace influences can have a very real social impact. In this sense, all Australian businesses are social enterprises, and it is a common mistake to view the drug and alcohol as only having relevance within the workplace.

A business social enterprise is one which operates in the marketplace to generate profits, but does so by fulfilling a cultural, social, or environmental purpose.1 Maintaining operations to benefit society encompasses a variety of efforts, activities, and goals. For example, the company may be committed to hiring the long-term unemployed or hiring those living in poverty and paying the employees a living wage. However, it might also brand itself as selling high quality sustainable products, free of defects and produced by a drug and alcohol free workforce. Social enterprises could include a branding component based on offering employees opportunities to voluntarily participate in Employee Assistance Plans to overcome addictions and working with local organisations to ensure workers have access to resources outside the workplace when needing help staying off drugs and alcohol.

Taking Social Responsibility to a New Level

Employers failing to develop a written drug and alcohol policy that complies with federal, state, or territory laws and regulations are inadvertently harming society. Even when they exist, it is common to view the drug and alcohol programs as standalone initiatives, taking them out of the broader social context. The truth is that society benefits from each worker able to end illicit drug use or who stops binge drinking because of employer-delivered workforce training.

Social enterprises are traditionally focused on funding or supporting some type of social cause like reducing unemployment, increasing social inclusion of marginalised people, producing Fair Trade products, increasing access to healthcare, and so on. Though drug and alcohol programs are not normally mentioned in context of social enterprise, they do play an important role in a society where illicit drugs and alcohol abuse harm communities and force governments to redirect scarce resources.

It is not just the business that benefits from building a social enterprise perspective, even if it is not following a social enterprise model. Companies that brand themselves as having a zero tolerance for workplace substance use are more likely to attract responsible people who support a drug and alcohol free culture. In addition, employers with strong drug and alcohol policies and employee support systems are often partnering with local services that can provide guidance and help as needed. This helps the support services achieve their goals as well.

In This Together

Though a drug and alcohol policy alone does not make a social enterprise, the resources put into helping employees get off and stay off drugs and alcohol contributes to the well-being of Australian society. In other words, helping workers live substance free lives through an investment of business resources might be one component of the larger work of the organisation.2 It is not necessary to strictly follow a social enterprise model to do good things for Australia. It is only necessary to have a social enterprise component that drives quality business performance.

An important component of successful drug and alcohol programs is the quality of testing supplies and equipment used by the employer. CMM Technology has what employers need to administer the drug and alcohol test program, including high quality products like the DDS2 Saliva Drug Test System and the Alcosense Precision Breathalyser.

This article has been taken from: http://www.cmm.com.au/articles/a-social-enterprise-perspective-of-da-programs/

The Endless Debate: Saliva Versus Urine Testing

Saliva Drug Test

Which is the best testing method for workplace drug and alcohol screening: saliva or urine testing? Whatever answer is given can be right or wrong, depending on the perspective and opinion of the employer. Over the last year there has been a flurry of activity conducted by the Fair Work Commission, the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA), and the Australia Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) concerning this very question. The decisions and opinions cover the entire spectrum from no drug testing to urine testing. Who is right (or wrong)? There is no easy answer because much of the debate is not defined simply by a discussion as to whether each type of test is accurate. It becomes an emotional debate concerning invasion of privacy and personal feelings about someone taking any type of body fluid, whether saliva, urine, or even a person’s breath for alcohol testing.

The discussion has been ongoing and involves numerous participants:

On August 14, 2012 the full bench of Fair Work Australia upheld an earlier decision in which the NSW State Government utility company Endeavour Energy was denied the option of conducting urine tests on workers because the tests could detect drugs that may have been used while not working.1

In July 2013, the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia announced it would withdraw the ability to get accredited for on-site initial, oral fluid testing under Australian Standard 4760:2006, citing unresolved technical issues.2

On October 28, 2013 the Fair Work Commission upheld an employee dismissal resulting from the employee’s refusal to provide a urine sample for a random drug test. The employee worked for AWH Pty Limited. In Raymond Briggs-v-AWH Pty Ltd[2013] FWCFB 3316 (5 June 2013) the employee had argued that a saliva sample was more appropriate. However FWC said the dismissal was valid because he had refused to comply with a “lawful and reasonable request” and the employee was “contractually bound to comply” due to the existence of an Enterprise Agreement.3

In January 2014, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union announced it was pursuing a legal challenge to urine testing at mine sites. The AMWU claims that saliva testing is accurate enough for the West Australian police and criminal courts and therefore should be good enough for mining employers. The union also believes that urine testing is an unnecessary invasion of privacy.

Still No Resolution

Despite the many rulings and NATA decision, the matter of saliva-versus-urine testing remains unresolved. That is largely due to the many issues involved in drug and alcohol testing programs, ranging from workplace safety to privacy. In fact, the privacy issue has two components in regards to urine testing. First, to ensure urine samples are not adulterated or exchanged for previously collected samples, there is usually a witness present during collection. In truth, if there were not people who try to cover up drug use, there would be no need for witnesses during sample collection.

The second privacy issue concerns the fact that urine tests can detect drugs used 5 to 10 days earlier, depending on the drug. Saliva tests detect drugs used within the last 2 to 3 days. Therefore, a urine test could inform an employer about employee behaviour while not on duty.

In the Fair Work Commission’s full bench decision, the Commissioners took note of the fact the employee was bound by the company’s Enterprise Agreement which required urine testing. Urine testing was also noted as being a common practice within the company and the mining industry. However, the Commission did not address whether saliva or urine testing is the best method.

First Concern: Employee Safety

The AMWU has said it is putting “BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Woodside” on notice. However, Rio Tinto already stated that it understands that urine testing is more reliable than saliva testing, and the first concern is the safety of its employees. Therefore, the company will continue urine testing.4 For Rio Tinto, any potential embarrassment an employee might experience is not comparable to the risk of injury or death due to drug and alcohol use. However, it is becoming clearer that any company using urine testing should consider putting an Enterprise Agreement in place. Job candidates unwilling to commit to the requirements always have the option of finding less risky employment elsewhere.

Onsite saliva and urine drug test are drug screenings and positive results should be verified by a pathology laboratory, and especially before any personnel actions are taken like suspension or dismissal. It is unlikely that the debate over which testing method is best for safety reasons while protecting privacy will continue on a case-by-case basis. One thing that is clear right now is that there should be workplace drug testing and alcohol test in place. The form of the testing is between the employers and the legal system. CMM Technology offers a variety of both saliva and urine testing supplies and equipment to accommodate any decision the employer makes.

This article has been taken from: http://www.cmm.com.au/articles/the-endless-debate-saliva-versus-urine-testing/

The Seven Deadly Sins

Saliva Drug Test

The seven deadly sins include anger, sloth, gluttony and other ill favored things. However, all of these have one thing in common: anyone who is out of their mind with stress and not getting what they need will exhibit any of these signs…almost as a cry for help. Anyone exhibiting signs of any of the seven deadly sins is showing that things are not right in their world, they are in pain, and they are seeking for a way out of their pain. The result is they often resort to some sort of bad habit, like substance abuse. A bad habit consists of anything which causes destruction to your innermost self, and alcohol and drug abuse certainly constitute these things.

In the workplace, screening test reveal which of your employees are abusing substances and which are clean. How often do you implement drug testing? Oral fluid drug tests and other drug test kits are good to use on a regularly schedule basis. Alcohol breathalyser devices are great for immediate help when an employee is behaving suspiciously on the jobsite. Signs of this include abnormal breathing, bloodshot eyes, flushed skin, belligerent or spacey behavior, rude or obnoxious demeanor, and lack of personal boundaries.

Slurred speech and false accusations are also signs of substance abuse.

AOD (alcohol and other drugs) has to be determined legitimately through screening tests, or the employee’s behavior is not scientifically relevant. Your manager may testify to their behavior, but until scientific data backs up their opinion, you are not leaving a proper paper trail to decrease company liability. It is necessary to make sure that you protect your company assets properly, or you are opening yourself up to potential lawsuits or breaches of employer conduct.

Paper trails always protect you.

As for the seven deadly sins, let’s just leave them to those who want those traits around them. Let them pass out of your business. Implement employee drug testing and use high quality drug test kits to make sure that you are letting the good employees stay and are allowing the bad employees to pass through.

This article has been taken from: http://www.cmm.com.au/articles/the-seven-deadly-sins/

Balancing Work-Life Systems

Breathalyser

If you have enough time at work, then you don’t have enough time at home, or so it seems. If you have enough time at home, then you have less time for work and your career, or so it would seem. Is a happy life one which is balance right in between the two? Or are people happier who focus on one or the other more fully?

The truth is, we all know someone who is a workaholic and we know about their suffering families and broken marriages. But, conversely, we all know someone who is happily just getting by doing the minimum amount of work necessary in order to survive, but focuses all of their time on community, family, home and traveling. Does one lifestyle matter more than another? Is it all based upon personal preference, or is there a way to get the maximum benefit, which applies to most people?

The work versus life systems which you have set up in your life should be entirely complementary. In other words, you should be able to, to some extent, live your job, and work on your family and home. Your work should be mostly work, but also engaging your personal side, bringing what you love and value into the picture, and your home and personal life should be able to take the kind of devotion and care which you give to your work. That is how the two can easily be complimentary. However, many people find it difficult to enjoy a job they thought would solve all of their problems if they have a history of being emotional weak or of substance abuse.

That is precisely why you need the information which drug test kits and alcohol screening tests can give you. Through the NATA accredited recalibration service from CMM Technology, as well as our variety of drug test equipment, you can make sure that your employees are working as hard and as efficiently as possible, without being affected by coworkers who may be abusing substances while at work. You can obtain information regarding these things, in order to make better decisions which will protect everyone in your workplace.

This article has been taken from: http://www.cmm.com.au/articles/balancing-work-life-systems/