AIR NZ CHIEF DEFENDS DRUG TESTS

A drug or alcohol-related oversight in almost any part of its business could
prove catastrophic, Air New Zealand told the Employment Court in Auckland
yesterday.

Deputy chief executive Craig Sinclair acknowledged that the airline did not
consider drug or alcohol abuse "endemic" among its 10,000 workers.

But he had no reason to consider his workforce any different to the general
population, a percentage of which had substance abuse problems.

Mr Sinclair was defending the airline's plans to put all staff on notice of
random drug and alcohol testing.

He told Chief Judge Tom Goddard and Judges Graeme Colgan and Barrie Travis,
who are considering a challenge by six unions, that his concerns were
heightened by reported increases in Ecstasy and P use as well as cannabis
use.

If almost any job in his organisation were not done properly, the failure
could snowball into "potentially catastrophic results".

In one case several years ago, an aircraft ended up in the wrong place after
a "back office" employee's failure to process an invoice stopped the airline
receiving the latest update of overseas aeronautical information.

Although drugs or alcohol were not implicated, he cited "isolated" reports
of pilots preparing for duty while possibly affected by such substances.

Most were stopped from working after notification by colleagues, but one
pilot completed a duty before being reported for breaching a 12-hour "bottle
to throttle" non-drinking requirement.

Mr Sinclair said the Employment Relations Authority recently dealt with the
case of a flight attendant rendered unfit by alcohol, and three others had
been dismissed in recent weeks for the same reason, although they denied
drinking.

He did not mention any incidents involving hard drugs, but said a flight
attendant was discovered with cannabis and an employee was also caught
selling the drug at one of the airline's engineering bases.

To a suggestion by union lawyer John Haigh, QC, that this was a minute list
of examples among such a large workforce, he said it was not exhaustive and
"one of these incidents is too many".

Mr Sinclair said the testing was part of a never-ending safety drive, and he
was unaware of any resentment against what union witnesses said earlier
would be a humiliating ordeal for workers in having to give urine samples.

"I take the view that our people will understand why we are doing this. It
is not punitive, it is not driven by a disciplinary process, it is driven by
safety."

He described the testing as an extension of a "just culture" approach in
which workers were encouraged to admit mistakes without fear of retribution
so safety breaches could be investigated.

But disciplinary action would be considered for workers whose breaches of a
policy of zero tolerance of drugs or alcohol at work was deemed reckless or
negligent.

To a claim by Mr Haigh that the "just culture" reference had "a degree of
waffle about it" if the decision to refer an employee to rehabilitation or
start disciplinary action was purely that of the airline, Mr Sinclair said
safety was ultimately Air NZ's responsibility.

And he said no blanket policy would allow religious or cultural beliefs as
excuses for refusing to give samples. Each case would have to be considered
on its merits.

Airline lawyer Robert Fardell, QC, said earlier that making allowances for
some workers on the basis of such beliefs would discriminate against the
rest.