In Australia, alcohol use is a daily part of many people’s lives. Although the use of illicit (illegal) drugs is not as common, the effects of both drug and alcohol use during and outside of work hours can have a significant negative impact on workplace health, safety and productivity.
Workers who are impaired by drugs or alcohol present a substantial safety risk to themselves and others as it may affect their ability to exercise judgment, coordination, motor control, concentration and alertness may be impaired, leading to increased risk of injury or accidents to themselves or others and damage to plant or equipment.
To illustrate this point, the Australian Drug Foundation estimates alcohol in the workplace costs businesses approximately $6 billion annually through lost productivity, absenteeism, injuries and workplace deaths.
Drugs and alcohol in the workplace can cause a range of significant problems for employers who have a general ‘duty of care’ obligation under health and safety laws to ensure that, as far as practicable, workers are not exposed to hazards and risks.
As such, an employer may be held liable for any negligent or wrongful acts committed by a drug- or alcohol-impaired worker unless the employer takes all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the behaviour.
For these reasons it is important for employers to implement a drug and alcohol policy for the workplace.
How to draft and implement a drug and alcohol policy
We recommend any employer considering drafting a drug and alcohol in the workplace policy follow these guidelines:
- develop the policy in consultation with all stakeholders in the workplace such as unions, workers, and health and safety representatives;
apply the policy equally to all workers across all levels of the business; - clearly state what is acceptable behaviour and the consequences of any unacceptable behaviour;
- if the policy includes testing, describe the testing protocols and procedures; and
- ensure the policy is clearly communicated to all members of the workforce.
Is testing justified?
Subjecting workers to drug and alcohol testing may be considered to be an unreasonable invasion of their privacy. Before any decision to conduct testing is made as part of the policy, it is recommended the employer consult with the workers about the safety reasons why testing is important and the proposed testing procedure.
A decision to conduct testing should be based on the effect impairment could have on health and safety in the workplace. For example, testing would be far more appropriate on a mine site or in a factory where heavy machinery is operated than an office as the impairment from alcohol or drugs is likely to have far more significant consequences.
Even where testing is considered to be necessary, employers must get a worker’s consent before implementing testing.
It is important to note that forcing an employee to be tested may expose an employer to criminal and civil liability.
Once testing has been conducted, it is imperative that the test results are stored securely and that workers’ privacy is protected.
Links and further references
Legislation
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld)
Cases
Introducing drug and alcohol testing:
Drug and alcohol testing policy:
Briggs v AWH Pty Ltd [2013] FWCFB 3316
Breaching the company drug and alcohol policy:
Daley v GWA Group Ltd T/A Dux Hot Water [2011] FWA 6993
Murphy v Patrick Stevedores [2011] FWA 6458
Further information
Developing a drug and alcohol policy is a very sensitive issue as it covers two competing workplace interests: private behaviour by an employee versus taking all available measures to ensure a safe working environment. If you are an employer and require assistance to develop a policy, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstance.
Related insights about employment law for employers
-
The “right to disconnect” from modern workplaces
The right to disconnect, as contained in Part 8 of the Fair Work Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill (Bill), gives employees the right to refuse contact from their employers (or related parties) outside of their working hours, unless the refusal is unreasonable. The changes in Part 8 amend various sections of the Fair Work…
-
Paid family and domestic violence leave for small business owners
The Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Act 2022 (Cth) (Amending Act) provides that employers must provide 10 days paid leave to all employees. Part-time and casuals also eligible. Confidentiality and ability to take leave in single and separate periods must be respected.
-
Pay secrecy laws come into effect
The Fair Work Legislation Amendment Act 2022 (Cth) has been passed, introducing workplace laws and changing existing rules. Employers must now ensure job ads include minimum wage info and protect confidential info when determining pay. This article provides an overview of the implications.
-
Employers to provide for paid domestic violence leave
The Federal Government has proposed a bill that provides eligible employees with paid family and domestic violence leave. Find out more about the proposed changes and how they could affect your business.
-
Ex-employees and IP protection
Ex-employees can be a threat to a company’s intellectual property, but with the right contractual clauses, employers can protect their trademarks, copyright, patent, and design. Learn more about how to safeguard your company’s intellectual property.
-
High Court clarifies meaning of casual employment
The High Court has ruled on the definition of a casual employee – but what does it mean for your employment relationship?
-
Costs in unfair dismissal applications – part 4
This article examines the rare but possible situation in which an employee could be liable to pay the employer’s costs in an Application under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Find out more about this situation and the case of Ewan Chapman v Ignis Labs Pty Ltd t/a Ignis Labs [2021] FWCFB 932.
-
Costs in unfair dismissal applications – part 3
This article looks at when costs orders can be imposed on a party to an unfair dismissal application, with an example of how costs orders can be imposed on a complainant employee.
-
Costs in unfair dismissal applications – part 2
The case of Clair Petersen v Kizuri Capital Pty Ltd, Maycorp Pty Ltd and Cricklewood Capital Pty Ltd T/A Allpet Products [2021] FWC 526 highlights the importance of parties engaging meaningfully and reasonably throughout the unfair dismissal process. A costs order was made against an employer who ignored settlement offers, demonstrating that such behaviour can…
