 |
 |
I passed this one to Diana Kloss this is her response re the Human Rights issue: Although the Information Commissioner in his guidance on the Data Protection Act, Part 4, advises that in general drug and alcohol testing should only be required for workers in safety critical roles, the European Court of Human Rights in Wretland v Sweden, 2004, held that it was permissible for an employer in a nuclear power plant to insist on an office cleaner being tested for illegal drugs, because, although her job was not safety critical, it was important to seek to ensure that the whole environment was drug free. See my article in OH at Work (2007) Vol 4/2, page 34. Happy New Year! Diana From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 21 December 2011 14:37 To: Prof. Diana Kloss Subject: FW: [OCC-HEALTH] Alcohol and drug testing > Hello Diana > > The subject of drug and alcohol testing has been discussed on JISC mail. One > of the most recent postings is below. > > Scenario: An employer, for example in the oil or nuclear industry, has a > policy of random drug and alcohol testing for all employees, not just those > who undertake a safety critical role. This policy is highlighted to all > applicants and again reiterated prior to the applicant prior to them signing > their contract of employment. Is there likely to be a contravention of the > Human Rights Act under these circumstances? > > Your opinion would be appreciated. > > Best wishes > > Anne > > On 21/12/2011 12:28, "Wendy Stimson Ladd" <[log in to unmask] > <http:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > Hi All > > Another consideration (apologies if already mentioned) is The Human Rights > Act! Clearly where there is a safety critical role etc that is acceptable but > if blanket screening is introduced to all, including non-scw, and bearing in > mind that a smoke of something at the weekend will still be detected the next > week, if it is not affecting their ability to do their job, no safety risk, > then you could be breaching their Human Rights!! > > Merry Christmas and Best Wishes for 2012 > > Wendy > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Hawkins, Matthew X > <[log in to unmask] <http:[log in to unmask]> > > wrote: > Hi List, > > I'm just trying to undertake a bit of benchmarking. > > For those of you who undertake testing, can you please advise if you have any > criteria for such testing relative to risk, e.g. only for safety critical > roles, and whether this is undertaken pre-placement? > > Appears like an obvious question (or questions), but we are currently having > the internal debate/consultation in the policy review process. There are a > number of 'non-OH' people pushing for testing for all, which we don't support > either ethically or based on risk and the evidence supporting such testing and > the benefits doesn't appear to be there to any great extent. > > Any responses gratefully received. > > Matt Hawkins > On 21/12/2011 14:12, "Amanda Savage" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights > into domestic law. Article 8 states that Œeveryone has the right to respect > for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence¹. > The right to private life could have implications for the legality of drug > testing at work. Article 3 protects the individual from cruel and degrading > treatment, but this article is unlikely to be triggered in any but the most > exceptional circumstances. > Recent guidance from the Information Commissioner responsible for > implementation of data protection laws states that Œother than in most > safety critical areas, regular drug testing is unlikely to be justified unless > there is a reasonable suspicion of drug use that has an impact on safety¹. > > Performance and productivity: the evidence concerning the relationship between > drug use and performance has been variously described as Œconflicting¹, > Œinsufficient¹ and Œinconclusive¹. The common assumption that drug and alcohol > use has a major impact on productivity and performance at work is not > conclusively supported by the evidence. > The key to the successful implementation of a drug and alcohol policy is that > it is conceived as a component of health and > welfare policy and not at least, not primarily as a disciplinary matter. A > drug and alcohol policy will be effective only if it is negotiated with and > accepted by staff across the organisation. > It would generally be preferable to test staff in safety-critical occupations > directly for impairment (fitness for work) rather than to conduct drug tests. > > Regards > Amanda Savage BSc (Hons) RGN, NEBOSH > Specialist Practitioner Occupational Health > PTH Group > 01527 577242 > [log in to unmask] > > > Amanda Savage > > PTH GROUP LIMITED > > Tel: 01527 577242 > Fax: > Email: [log in to unmask] > Website: www.pthgroup.co.uk <http://www.pthgroup.co.uk/> > > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail > > CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and may be > legally privileged. It is intended only for the person(s) or entity named. If > you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by > calling +44(0)1527-577242 and do not disclose to another person or use / copy > / or forward / all or any of it in any form or take action in reliance on it. > The views expressed in this e-mail may be personal and do not necessarily > reflect those of PTH Group Limited. If an attachment is included PTH Group > Limited cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a > result of software viruses. It is your responsibility to carry out such virus > checking as is necessary before opening any such attachment. > > Registered office: PTH Group Limited, Banham Court, Hanbury Road, Stoke Prior, > Bromsgrove, Worcs. B60 4JZ. Registered in England 4617238. VAT No 823 7833 16 > > From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf > Of Wendy Stimson Ladd > Sent: 21 December 2011 14:02 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [OCC-HEALTH] Alcohol and drug testing > > Would be interested to hear her thoughts Anne.... > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:23 PM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > Interesting one. As Diana Kloss is a visiting professor for our programme and > frequently teaches our students I will see if she can can give us an answer on > the Human Rights issue. If applicants are told of the policy at recruitment > and they decide to take the job that may have been taken care of. > > Anne > > > > > On 21/12/2011 12:28, "Wendy Stimson Ladd" <[log in to unmask] > <http:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: >> >> Hi All >> >> Another consideration (apologies if already mentioned) is The Human Rights >> Act! Clearly where there is a safety critical role etc that is acceptable but >> if blanket screening is introduced to all, including non-scw, and bearing in >> mind that a smoke of something at the weekend will still be detected the next >> week, if it is not affecting their ability to do their job, no safety risk, >> then you could be breaching their Human Rights!! >> >> Merry Christmas and Best Wishes for 2012 >> >> Wendy >> >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Hawkins, Matthew X >> <[log in to unmask] <http:[log in to unmask]> > >> wrote: >> Hi List, >> >> I'm just trying to undertake a bit of benchmarking. >> >> For those of you who undertake testing, can you please advise if you have any >> criteria for such testing relative to risk, e.g. only for safety critical >> roles, and whether this is undertaken pre-placement? >> >> Appears like an obvious question (or questions), but we are currently having >> the internal debate/consultation in the policy review process. There are a >> number of 'non-OH' people pushing for testing for all, which we don't support >> either ethically or based on risk and the evidence supporting such testing >> and the benefits doesn't appear to be there to any great extent. >> >> Any responses gratefully received. >> >> Matt Hawkins >> >> >> ******************************** Please remove this footer before replying. >> >> OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html >> >> CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS: >> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH >> > > ******************************** Please remove this footer before replying. > OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html > > CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH > > > > ******************************** Please remove this footer before replying. OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH