Pass a saliva drug test
Shell planned upon changing their safety policies relating to testing for drugs and alcohol at its Clyde Refinery and Gore Bay Terminal in New South Wales.
The union on site, the Mining and Energy division of the CFMEU, were concerned that the new policy unduly invaded employees’ privacy and initiated war of words proceedings in the Commission. The union argued that, whilst it supported testing when done in a fair and fair-minded manner (without interruption safety precipitate), it was of the view that testing should be for newly come use of drugs and alcohol. They argued that oral fluid testing was more likely than urine testing to produce evidence of recent drug/alcohol use demonstrating impairment. Urine testing forward the other hand would produce ground of belief of drug use over a long period, with no relationship to present impairment, and because that reason was an unnecessary incursion into employees’ private lives.
Shell argued that oral testing was far less sensitive than animal-water testing and would lead to the rapid realisation by those using drugs that the chances of being detected were relatively low. They argued that urine testing is far more likely to uncover patterns of drug use by individuals which may lead to levels of impairment and other safety concerns in the workplace. Also, Shell argued that even when drugs are no longer detectable by dint of. way of oral fluids testing, they may continue to make less a worker.
Senior Deputy President Hamberger stated that the question in front of the AIRC was whether it would be flagitious or unreasonable for Shell to implement a piss testing regime that has a wide window of discovery and which interferes with the private lives of employees, when in that place is any other testing means available which is more focused and yields results more able to depict actual impairment and does not ascertain drugs that have been used in the past and which would not affect the employee at work. The Commission found that to implement such a regime on this basis would be unjust and stupid. Two qualifications to this position were imposed:
1. Currently, no Australian laboratories are accredited for oral fluid testing under the relevant Australian Standard and that Shell could not be expected to implement an oral fluid testing system until a laboratory was accredited;
2. There are drugs (so as benzodiazepines) with respect to that the Australian Standard does not have target concentration levels and thus Shell could not be expected to implement an parole fluid based regime until an agreement could be reached between stakeholders regarding the drugs to exist tested for and appropriate target collection upon a single point levels.
The Commission noted that previous tribunal decisions in Australia had justified random urine based testing on safety dregs, moreover that since oral fluid testing regimes have become available and an Australian Standard has been developed, these should be preferred.
The Commission rejected Shell’session argument that verbal testing was not accurate, certifiable, reliable, repeatable or consistent because the argument was based on on-site testing rather than laboratory testing. The AIRC also found that Shell’sitting topic that oral testing tested a more limited range of drugs was not consistent with evidence led by the concord’s expert witness (who was accepted on this point). The Commission concluded on the ground of belief before it that oral fluids testing would be sufficient, as significant impairment only occurs several hours subsequent to the ingestion of drugs.
??? ???? ??????? ?? ????????? ??????
