No more on the job piss tests!

A friend passed this on to me today. It was written by David Thompson who is a partner at Hunt and Hunt Lawyers. Unfortunatley I could not cut and paste this so I have had to re type it.

A decision handed down In the Australian IRC on 25/08/08 could bring about the end of urine testing for drugs and alcohol in the workplace in the near future (Shell Refining Australia pty ltd -v- CFMEU), if the reasoning of SDP Hamburger is adopted by the full bench of the AIRC or the Federal Court.

In his decision , he rejected the reasoning in a 10 year old often cited precedent decision of the WA IRC in the BHP Iron Ore case. In that deceision WAIRC found that a random testing program using urine samples was justified on safety grounds and was both fair and reasonable. In this case, SDP Hamburgerfound that in the last decade, oral fluid (saliva) testing has become availableand an Australian Standard for this testing has been developed. He found that it would be unjust and unreasonablefor the company to implement a urine based random testing regime at its Clyde refinery. with its wide "window of detection" and all that implies for interfering with the private lives of employees. Inhis view a more focussed method (saliva testing), is available where a positve test is far more likley to indicate actual impairment.

This conclusion was based on eveidence that drugs can be detected in urine well beyond the time the drug is having a significant biological effect. For example, the detection time for cannaboids in urine is 3 to 28 days, whereas for saliva it is up to 12 hours. For Meth, the detection time in urine is 2-5 days and only 24 hrs in saliva.

The decision was subject to 2 qualifications:

(a) Firstly, at this stage, no laboratories have as yet been accreditied under the relevant Australian Standards for saliva testing. It is understood this will change in the relatively near future.

(b) Secondly, there are drugs that the company may wish to test for (such as benzodiazapans) for which the Australian standard does not contain target concentration levels. The company should not be expected to implement a saliva testing regime until it has the agreement of the union and the testing lab on what other drugs it wishes to test for and what would be an appropriate target concentration level.


Will post remainder in the morning. Cant type any more

Hey that sounds like great news. It always struck me how bloody unfair it is that someone can be stoned days or weeks ago and still lose there job even though they weren't stoned on the job.

Good typing Terroir.

Once these 2 qualifications are satisfactorily resolved, the commission indicated that any random drug testing should be using saliva. Until then, it would be reasonable for the company to implement a urine based testing program on an interim basis only.

SDP Hamburger rejected much of the expert evidence led by shell, relating to the unreliability of the saliva test results and the data indicating a high level of false positives and false negatives for cannabis in saliva testing. Instead, he prefered the expert evidence led by the CFMEU, the the effect that saliva testing in the laboratory brings about accurate results.

In coming to the conclusion he has, SDP Hamburger has also effectivley rejected submissions put by shell that "acute impairment" within a short period after ingestion or consumption of a substance should not be the only matter of concern for employers. It was also argued that the "hangover" issue is significant. If there is chronic use of drugs or alcohol, the argument was put that the employer should be interested in this aswel, as oposed to being only interested if the employee is affected by drugs or alcohol. Other wise from a risk management point of view, the apprach would be very superficial. The rejection of this admission is a significant one for the all employers who operate workplaces where employees involved in substance abuse can lead to significant health and safety consequences.

The decision will cause angst for all employers who currently have a random urine testing regime in place. Once the 2 qualifications outlined in the decision are satisfied, employers can expect a rush of applications to the AIRC seeking findings that developments in technology now mean that their existing testing regimes have now become unjust and unreasonable.

It remains to be seen whether the decision is appealed.

Cop that corporate Australia

no more taking the piss.

no more taking the piss.

QUEENSLAND Rail bosses will tonight shout themselves and their closest comrades an opulent $30,000 Riverfire function at taxpayers' expense.

While thousands pack crowded Citytrains and jostle for a decent vantage point, 60 executives and guests of the troubled State Government company will be wining and dining at a swanky soiree at high-end Asian eatery Siana on Eagle St, which markets itself as "the place to be no matter what your mood".

The Courier-Mail has obtained a copy of the menu selected by QR's bosses, which includes a selection of choice canapes, such as fois gras crumble with mango, and a six-course degustation menu, including lamb with a smoky aubergine relish.

It is understood guests will be served on arrival with Krug champagne which retails from $200 to $3000 a bottle and was favoured by the late Queen Mother, followed by shots of Suntory whisky. The revelation has again put pressure on state Transport Minister John Mickel, who was clueless about the function after being left off the guest list.

In a statement he admitted the function was "unacceptable" and said he had asked for a "please explain".

"I am sure the many passengers on QR's services find it hard to understand how this sort of function represents value for money," he said.

QR chief Lance Hockridge, who will attend, refused to be interviewed. But a QR spokeswoman said it was not the company's first Riverfire function, the event would "benefit the people of Queensland" and they would do it again.

This came to me yesterday.

The decision was upheld by the IRC.

Again cant copy the document so will have to re type, not doing it now.

In summing up the panel found that

" The employer has a legitimate right (and indeed obligation) to try and eliminate the risk that employees might come to work impaired by drugs or alcohol such that they could pose a risk to health and safety. Beyond that the employer has no right to dictate what drugs or alcohol its employees take in their own time. Indeed it would be unjust and unreasonable to do so. "

Great news for the stoner.