Drugs!

c00lbeans

Whelp I am regretting volunteering for the Department rep position now.:(

Our contracts detail a drug policy, pretty standards stuff really "though shalt not be under the influence of drugs and alcohol whilst at work" we all agree this is very reasonable.

The problem that has now arisen is that the employers have issued a new drugs and alcohol policy that states "Any trace of narcotics in your system is grounds for a disciplinary and possible gross neg charges"

Now I was a bit pish on my Pharmacology at Uni, but as far as I am aware there is a major difference between "being under the influence of drugs" and having trace amounts of metabolytes in the system.

As the departments rep for liaison between the department and upper management, I have been asked by several of my colleagues to challenge the policy, citing the reason that it is the second contractual change in as many months without consultation (the first being qualifying days for sick leave).

Now I am in the unenviable position of trying to raise this issue at our next "interface meeting" without looking like a massive junkie.

I have pretty much resigned myself to being the first one to be randomly tested when the policy comes into force, fortunately that is not a problem for me, seeing as I only narcotize myself with fine- !!! whisky and only when not at work.

So tell me, are we right in assuming that a new Drugs and alcohol policy would be regarded as a change of contract, as there is an extant policy in place and should the company have consulted with us before issuing it.

CKhalvashi

If you're happy to put yourself in the position where you're probably going to be tested (and IMO, raising it will put you in line for that), then I'd say it can be raised.

Legally I'm not sure where it stands (we have restrictions on drug use/influence at work and when not working, but using our vehicles), but IMO it would depend largely on your actual job description as to whether this is considered 'fair'.

Someone will be along with more advice, as whilst I'm an employer, I'm not a lawyer.

CK

Moto2

c00lbeans wrote: »

The problem that has now arisen is that the employers have issued a new drugs and alcohol policy that states "Any trace of narcotics in your system is grounds for a disciplinary and possible gross neg charges"

There are plenty of people taking narcotics under prescription for many reasons.
A statement like "Any trace of narcotics in your system is grounds for a disciplinary and possible gross neg charges" needs challenging and replaced with a narrow definition with caveats.

Southend1

Agree with moto2. You should find out the logic (or lack of) behind the change and try to agree a compromise that meets the employers need e.g. For workers not to chop off a customers head because they are high while respecting the employees rights e.g. To take prescription drugs or have a pint in their spare time.

marybelle01

Policies are not generally contractual conditions, so it isn't necessarily a contractual change. Policies are the "employers rule book", and as such it is broadly up to them what their rules are. Whether those rules are then "fair" usually relates to whether employees are, or should be, aware of what the rule is if it comes to a dismissal based on breaking the "rule". So even if you challenge it, it is unlikely that you could overturn the change if this is what the employer wants to do.


What is more achievable is pointing out that the wording of the clause is flawed. Changing "Any trace of narcotics in your system is grounds for a disciplinary and possible gross neg charges" to "Any trace of non-prescription narcotics in your system may be grounds for a disciplinary and possible gross neg charges" would allow for those taking drugs for medical reasons, and also provides a level of discretion in the policy, although obviously if there is an issue with any drugs use in the workplace (which there may be in some employments) then there needs to be a system in place for the reporting and monitoring of legitimate prescription drug use so that people can inform the management of drugs they are taking.


Personally I think that it is somewhat OTT, but I don't see that the employer is doing anything illegal having such a policy.

Moto2

The use of the word 'narcotic' is lazy

Medically, narcotic generally relates to opiates so you could argue that amphetamine [speed] isn't covered under that description.
I wouldn't expect you'd get far with that argument but all the same, it shows up the lazy writing of the policy.

PHYTHIAN

Agree totally with marybelle01 on this.

It is a compnay policy and therefore not a contractual matter as such. The wording of the policy needs checking/correcting also as marybelle01 points out. An example of the importance of this would be where someone has been to the dentist for a filling etc. If this person then went to work and was tested they would fail the test.
Medications such as Night Nurse, codeine, anadin extra ( in fact anything with extra in the name) would also lead to a fail.

I work on the railway and have to be very careful what i take. However there is a number I can ring to check if the medication is OK to take.

ValHaller

Southend1 wrote: »

Agree with moto2. You should find out the logic (or lack of) behind the change and try to agree a compromise that meets the employers need e.g. For workers not to chop off a customers head because they are high while respecting the employees rights e.g. To take prescription drugs or have a pint in their spare time.

I would go with the above

c00lbeans wrote: »

The problem that has now arisen is that the employers have issued a new drugs and alcohol policy that states "Any trace of narcotics in your system is grounds for a disciplinary and possible gross neg charges"

I would be more interested in the rights they claim to test people. Without testing, there is no evidence for a disciplinary. Without a policy for testing, there is no basis to test. So a potential huge row when the first person refuses to be tested and is sacked as presumed guilty of drugs.

In your position, I think I would be going in to argue that the policy is full of holes and poorly thought out and that it should be rewritten form the first principle Southend suggests. In particular you need to make the case that the policy should be strictly trimmed to meet the legitimate interests of the business in ensuring the capability of its employees and it should not be used to conduct a moral campaign for the whole of society.

You can argue too that

• employees should not be put in dilemmas over their legitimate dental and medical needs and that they should not be put in jeopardy for use of over the counter medication.
• employees may go on leave to places where the law is different and they should not be penalised for legal acts in other jurisdictions
• Looking at some of the sporting dope test positives, people have been caught out by small changes in legitimate food supplement formulations and by disputes over tests catching different but related chemicals
• Don't forget that legal poppy seed cake can apparently leave small traces of narcotics (in the hair IIRC)

In view of the above, the the policy as written has too much scope to create hard cases where people can be dismissed for very debatable or even totally unreasonable apparent transgressions which could cause controversy and bring the policy into disrepute.. Therefore it would be better to rewrite the policy such that transgressions would only be the more clear cut cases so that the policy would leave employees confident about where they stood and would command the widest support rather than being viewed as a poorly thought out and draconian imposition.

ohreally

c00lbeans wrote: »

So tell me, are we right in assuming that a new Drugs and alcohol policy would be regarded as a change of contract, as there is an extant policy in place and should the company have consulted with us before issuing it.

Why not join a trade union and collectively benefit from consultative agreements with the employer?

teddysmum

Moto2 wrote: »

There are plenty of people taking narcotics under prescription for many reasons.

They need not even be prescription drugs , as low dose Co-codomal (containing codeine, a narcotic) can be bought over the counter.

System

It is normal on drugs test to ask whether the person is taking any prescription drugs or any over the counter drugs (normally shown a list) that would give a positive reading. They should also be asked that if they are not sure or something they take is not on the list to mention it.

When the sample is tested the lab uses this info to screen out false positives from those products.