SAFETY FIRST

Whether or not to allow random drug testing of employees, that is the
question to be faced by the Employment Court as it hears a case brought by
unions representing thousands of Air New Zealand staff. And it is a hearing
that will be keenly watched by a number of industries.

In the past five years, workplace drug testing by Environmental Science and
Research has increased by 200 per cent, with 300 companies throughout the
country now using the service. Main users, understandably enough, are
industries involving higher-risk occupations.

This is the case with Air New Zealand. It argues that safety of the flying
public could be easily compromised if a person under the influence of
alcohol or drugs is left undetected in their job. This makes sense. The
thought of a drug-impaired worker being responsible for engine maintenance
or giving the lead during on-flight safety arrangements is enough to send a
shiver down the spine of any would-be traveller.

If there is good reason for a test - in cases where safety is an issue and
where there is evidence of drug or alcohol use - then random testing should
apply. But no one wants the practice introduced on an ad hoc basis simply
because it is the latest fashion from the United States or because of some
misguided puritanical bent aimed at stamping out drinking and drug-taking
among employees.

So it is that the Employment Court has to decide how far safety
considerations should outweigh the right of people to be in control of who
can and cannot take blood and urine samples from their bodies. Clearly, in
some cases at least, safety must come first.