Hertsmere council staff face compulsory drink and drug tests

Drink and drug testing is set to be brought in for council workers in Hertsmere.

Politicians voted this week to introduce spot tests for employees suspected to be under the influence during work hours.

The decision comes after a worker was dismissed last year for alcohol abuse.

The new policy and testing equipment is expected to be in place at the beginning of April.

The committee’s chairman, Councillor John Donne, said: "I think it is good to review all council policies after a certain period of time, otherwise things will stagnate."

Changes are being made now because the current Alcohol Policy, last reviewed in 2007, does not address the wider issues of substance misuse such as drugs and solvents.

At a council meeting last year, The Head of HR and Customer Services said that such tests, had they been available earlier in the year, would have been used on a number of occasions and would have placed the council in a stronger position.

Two forms of testing will be introduced; the breathalyser test will be used to detect alcohol consumption, whereas the saliva swab test will be used to identify other substances.

The council will set a maximum limit of 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood for any employee during their working day - the same as the current drink driving limit.

Councillor Donne added: "It won’t be random testing, instead it would depend if there is felt to be a need."

Councillor Donne said, at the moment, the policy does not apply to members, and this decision will be later reviewed by the executive committee.

The policy allows a member of staff to be tested if there is just cause and reasonable belief they are under the influence of drink or drugs.

Line managers will be in charge of whether they deem substance testing necessary and council officers will administer the tests themselves after training.

The new policy states that staff must not be under the influence of alcohol or other substances that impair working ability, or work under the influence of prescribed drugs against medical advice.

It also states staff must not bring illegal substances into work or consume illegal substances in the workplace, or within break and lunchtimes before returning to work.

If a member of staff has given just cause to suspect they are under the influence of a substance they could be asked to take one of the two tests.

Comments(11)

MarsLander says...
2:58pm Thu 28 Feb 13

What about councillors?

MarsLander says...
3:24pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Mayors?

Chief Executives?

Everyone?

Sara says...
4:01pm Thu 28 Feb 13

I really don't see why councillors aren't being included in the proposed scheme. Surely it's important that they are sober when making decisions?

MarsLander says...
4:24pm Thu 28 Feb 13

The limit is the same as driving, so it's quite reasonable to expect councillors to keep under that limit whilst acting as councillors.

gasguzzler says...
4:32pm Thu 28 Feb 13

That's equality for you.
'Dont do as I do,do as I say'.

Andrew Turpie says...
5:13pm Thu 28 Feb 13

The testing is very expensive up to £90 a pop I here. Tax payer to pay as per the norm?

Andrew Turpie says...
5:13pm Thu 28 Feb 13

*I hear....(just pass me a test now....)

garston tony says...
12:00pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Andrew, the cost to the tax payer would be far higher of keeping someone employed who isnt able to function due to substance or alcohol abuse. This is targeted testing so will only be done when there is felt to be a need for it too so it may never be used, and I would imagine if used would come in once an employee has already been approached about an issue and warned about conduct. This test would be used as evidence to support further disciplinary action and indeed a dismissal if it came to it. The council would still have to take appropriate steps to show that they have offered the employee every opportunity to rectify their behaviour

This should apply to councillors too I agree and we'll have to wait and see what happens when they have to vote on that matter. Lets hope they don’t cop out of doing the right thing

LSC says...
12:51pm Fri 1 Mar 13

This is a sticky issue. I see the logic as described by Tony about having proof should things need to be taken further.

What concerns me is if someone is asked to take a test and it comes back negative. I'm not sure I could work for a line manager who thought my normal personality suggested I was on drugs, and it would be humiliating in the extreme.

I can also see it being used at councillor level to score cheap points off each other. If I discovered that every time my councillor expressed an opinion they were asked to take a drugs test, I might start to wonder about their opinions. After all, councillors don't have managers so it would have to be other councillors who make the request.

garston tony says...
1:54pm Fri 1 Mar 13

I did think about how you would feel if you were innocent and yet asked to take a test. Thats why I could only imagine it being used not as a first step (unless the person was so obviously out of it and they just wanted the test to confirm it) but as part of already started disciplinary action i.e. someone had already received a warning over conduct. If you just had a certain type of personality then that would already be known wouldnt it?

Similarly with Cllr's, I am led to believe that all councils have a code of conduct and disciplinary measures even for elected members and that there is mechanisms in place to have those enforced so it should just be a matter of slotting a drug/alcohol test into the procedure somewhere appropriate.

I do see how care would need to be taken so it wasnt used as an underhand political tool but by the same token there has to be safety mechanisms in place to cater for staff being falsely accused by members of the public who are trying to get their own back due to a grievance or other.

Andrew Turpie says...
2:33pm Fri 1 Mar 13

LSC wrote:
This is a sticky issue. I see the logic as described by Tony about having proof should things need to be taken further.

What concerns me is if someone is asked to take a test and it comes back negative. I'm not sure I could work for a line manager who thought my normal personality suggested I was on drugs, and it would be humiliating in the extreme.

I can also see it being used at councillor level to score cheap points off each other. If I discovered that every time my councillor expressed an opinion they were asked to take a drugs test, I might start to wonder about their opinions. After all, councillors don't have managers so it would have to be other councillors who make the request.
Yes indeed a tricky one this - imagine being asked for a test and it did come back negative.

One scenario which I recall from the late 80s, a postal worker who was a lovely eldery chap, one night shift started dropping mail all over the place and unable to focus and stand correctly. Inital thoughts by everyone was he was under the influence of alcohol. It transpired that he was actually diabetic and the staff who worked in the canteen that night were on a 24 hr strike and was unable to purchase food to get his sugar levels adjusted. Now occupational health may know about peoples health issues. But due to confidentiality, line managers may not. If a test was inforced on some one in this situation, the "victim" may find it hard to work effectively after, with the office rumours etc. I think worst case scenario - a case for constructive dismissal could follow (extremely rare, but there could be a case).

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree