Pubdate: Thu, 05 Jun 2014
Source: Nelson Mail, The (New Zealand)
Copyright: 2014 Fairfax New Zealand Limited
Contact:  http://www.nelsonmail.co.nz/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1069
Page: 3
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

WORKERS AT MILL WIN CASE OVER DRUG TESTS

Workers at Carter Holt Harvey's Eves Valley mill have won their case
against mass drug testing.

Almost 200 employees at the sawmill near Nelson were forced to have
their urine tested after two cannabis plants were found growing on the
site.

Some 76 employees of Carter Holt Harvey Limited's Eves Valley Sawmill,
who were also members of the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing
Union, complained to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) about
the tests.

The authority has found the employees were unjustifiably disadvantaged
in being compelled to take the tests, and Carter Holt Harvey breached
its duty of good faith to them. The workers are also to be
compensated.

"This is a victory for our members, and a victory for common decency
and respect," says Ron Angel, EPMU national industry organiser for
timber workers.

'We've been concerned about the whole drug testing regime at Carter
Holt Harvey for some time, and clearly our concerns were justified."

He said the union supported good health and safety practice in the
workplace. "But drug testing has to be about proving actual impairment
at work  not treating workers as guilty until proven innocent."

The union described the company's action as "invasive, unfair drug
testing". Carter Holt Harvey declined to comment.

On March 7 last year, the cannabis plants were found growing in the
grounds outside the sawmill buildings. Following the discovery, site
manager Darryn Adams ordered all employees to undergo a reasonable
cause drug test.

In the following days about 190 employees, including managers, were
subjected to urine tests.

When the tests began, a delegate contacted the union's area organiser,
George Hollinsworth, who phoned Adams and said the union considered
the testing would be in breach of the drug and alcohol policy, as it
was neither random nor testing for reasonable cause.

Adams eventually agreed to halt testing so a meeting with Hollinsworth
and union delegates could be held.

They told Adams the union did not believe the situation fell within
the reasonable cause category, and that he didn't have the right to
test all of the staff in relation to the plants.

One employee was found to have a non-negative test, but there was no
suggestion he planted the marijuana plants, the authority said.

Carter Holt Harvey said it was justified in testing the employees in
the way it did because it was reasonable to assume that whoever
planted the marijuana worked at the sawmill.

It conceded the testing was not in strict accordance with its policy
and procedures, but said it was motivated "by a strong desire to
protect its employees and so the testing was justified".

Reasonable cause testing in the collective agreement required evidence
to suspect an individual employee was affected by drugs before
deciding to test. It applied to individual employees and not to a
whole shift or whole workforce, the authority said.

The authority received evidence from five of the applicants  four men
and one woman.

Authority member Christine Hickey upheld the complaints.

"That was to their disadvantage, not only because giving a urine
sample in an employment setting is invasive and compromising of an
employee's dignity and privacy, but particularly because the
requirement was not in line with any of their terms of conditions of
their employment," she said.

This negatively affected the necessary relationship of trust between
employer and employee.

The applicants wanted $2500 each and $20,000 as a penalty for breaches
of good faith.

Hickey said as the employment relationship was ongoing it was more
suitable for the parties to make efforts to agree on the amount of
compensation payable to the applicants than for her to make orders.
She directed the parties to mediation to set the amount of
compensation.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt