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.