Interface

Issue 3 2020 37 be singled out for drugs testing and neither can those selected be forced to take a test, however if a test is refused when the employer has good grounds for testing, disciplinary action may follow. It must be noted however that drugs testing is by no means compulsory within the construction industry. Despite this, the potential dangers associated with drug abuse in construction mean that all companies should ensure that they have a clear policy on the matter, if they are to avoid serious injury or even death. DUTY OF CARE If an accident occurs because of drug abuse, employers could face hefty fines or even be prosecuted, because employers have a duty of care to maintain a safe working environment under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Furthermore, depending on the circumstances, in the event of a fatality they could also be found personally liable under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act. A whole raft of associated legislation can also be drawn upon in the event of drug related accidents, such as The Misuse of Drugs Act, The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, or even the Road Traffic Act where it relates to construction vehicles. It is vital that construction companies are unequivocal in their approach to drugs testing, as non-compliance with the relevant legislation could result in serious losses on both personal and corporate levels. The question is: How best can construction firms go about ensuring that all the bases are covered to protect both staff and the wider business from drug related incidents? As an initial measure, some companies stipulate that an offer of employment is conditional on the grounds that the potential employee successfully passes a drugs test. This is perfectly within their legal rights providing it is stated within the company’s policies and procedures handbook. On a longer-term basis, once employee consent has been clearly established, there are two primary ways of conducting drugs testing at work. The first is to allocate the role to a suitably trained member of staff, keeping the process in-house. Training and certification for this is readily available from a number of providers, and companies producing drugs testing kits will often also provide this training. Alternatively, external drugs testing companies can be brought in to carry out testing periodically. In either case, the importance of having a clear policy in place to begin with cannot be overstated. As well as giving construction firms the contractual right to carry out testing, it may also serve to protect professional working relationships and ongoing contracts of work in the event of an incident. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION Should an employee refuse to submit to a drugs test, despite being contractually bound, if further discussions with the employee around the issue prove unsuccessful, it may be necessary to commence disciplinary proceedings. Obviously, nobody would want things to get to this stage, and staff training on the dangers and wider effects of drug use within construction may go some way towards preventing employee refusal. It is also vital that existing drug related policies are effectively communicated to the workforce so that all staff are fully aware of where their employer stands on the issue. To give an example of how this all works in practice, in one large workplace where drugs testing was implemented, the employer had initially only suspected that one particular member of staff was under the influence. Random testing was rolled out, because as previously mentioned, employers are not legally permitted to single out individual members of staff for testing. This went on until eventually all staff had been tested. Ten members of staff failed the drugs test and, as the company had a zero tolerance policy, they were all eventually dismissed once the disciplinary proceedings were over and all other options had been exhausted. The following year, when drugs testing was carried out again, no members of staff tested positive. In terms of the wider impacts drug abuse can have in construction, in the USA research has found that there was a 51% reduction in work-related injuries within two years within companies which implemented drug and alcohol testing to existing and prospective employees. Statistics like these clearly demonstrate the long-term benefits of having thorough policies and procedures in place, to protect employees, employers, family members and even the reputation and success of construction companies from the far-reaching and potentially devastating effects of drug abuse. There are many options available to support employers with implementing drugs testing, or revising existing policies and procedures - and there is hope for those struggling with drug abuse in the form of the many charities and wider public bodies dedicated to tackling the problem at its root. HAE encourages all firms large and small to take advantage of the help that is available, knowing that this challenge can be faced with confidence and its effects significantly reduced in the future. <<