Pubdate: Fri, 16 Apr 2004
Source: Marlborough Express (New Zealand)
Copyright: Independent Newspapers Limited 2004
Contact:  http://www.marlboroughexpress.co.nz/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1139
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

TESTING TIMES AHEAD

Strict criteria needs to be formulated urgently to ensure fair play all 
round now that the Employment Court has made its landmark ruling, allowing 
Air New Zealand the right to drug test its workers, writes The Marlborough 
Express in an editorial.

The court vetoed random testing across the board of the 10,000-strong 
airline workforce, but ultimately ruled that in areas where the effects of 
drugs could have catastrophic consequences, safety overrides an employee's 
expectation of privacy. The first comprehensive decision on workplace drug 
testing in New Zealand, this week's judgement allows Air New Zealand to 
test for drugs after an accident or near accident, or if it has cause to 
believe an employee's dangerous behaviour was due to drugs, specifically in 
"safety sensitive" positions.

The ramifications are widespread not just in the aviation industry. Qantas 
and other airlines operating in New Zealand have signalled an interest in 
the court ruling looking to probable application to their own employees, as 
have various other industries including forest owners.

Random testing is out so as to respect the privacy of workers in positions 
where safety is not critical and where there has been no indications that 
drugs have been taken, but that still leaves a multitude of employees 
liable to be tested.

Many are already, including those in more than a dozen companies in 
Blenheim and Picton, being screened for drug and alcohol use. The Institute 
of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) which processes the samples 
says 45 companies throughout the top of the South Island are already 
testing, with the majority being involved in forestry. Transport and 
construction companies in Marlborough are also increasingly using workplace 
testing.

The forest owners association conducts pre-employment testing - as does 
many other industries - and has been keenly awaiting the Air New Zealand 
outcome with a view to also implementing just-cause and random testing of 
its thousands of employees.

That happening may take some time, however. The ruling has been made but 
before any drug-testing system can be implemented, companies involved need 
to undertake extensive consultation with their workforces.

In the meantime some of the parties, unions in particular, disappointed by 
this week's court ruling and its failure to completely rule out random 
testing may decide to appeal the decision, and that will further delay any 
implementation.

What it will provide, however, is time to clear up a few pressing matters 
in relation to drug-testing policies. Limits need to be set on the power to 
drug test and safeguards on the ways the results can be used. Protective 
legislation also needs to be promulgated to ensure specific legal rights 
and responsibilities for industries other that Air New Zealand are put in 
place.

Employers do have responsibilities under the Health and Safety in 
Employment Act and in areas where safety is a concern, drug testing has to 
be considered reasonable, especially as it has been proven in the past to 
be a worthwhile deterrent measure. It can, however be intrusive and a 
breach of privacy if not applied reasonably which is why legislation and 
limits are needed to set out exactly what the rights and responsibilities 
in this difficult area are.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom