Comments on: Interesting ruling on drug testing in the workplace http://www.drugblog.net/2008/09/02/interesting-ruling-on-drug-testing-in-the-workplace/ News and issues for ATOD professionals Sun, 27 Nov 2011 05:07:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Neil Barrett http://www.drugblog.net/2008/09/02/interesting-ruling-on-drug-testing-in-the-workplace/comment-page-1/#comment-81785 Neil Barrett Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:58:55 +0000 http://www.drugblog.net/?p=164#comment-81785 The AIRC decision will result in the end of intrusive urine based drug testing that shows absolutely no evidence of any level of impairment. As Deputy Hamberger stated "on an interim basis" could urine testing be performed, it is clear that all concerned knows that it is only allowed on safety grounds but will be deemed unreasonable in the very near future, in favour of saliva testing to AS4760. One other point that I can see in Hamberger's decision as an argument for employees is that Hamberger allowed urine testing because the Australian labs are not yet accredited to Australian standard AS4760. To me this means that Hamberger deemed urine testing to AS4380 as being reasonable since labs are qualified to AS4380 however, employer's should ensure that their own drug testing regime stands up to scrutiny of the Australian standards. A single broken link in the "chain of custody" of the urine sample is as good as a null & void test. The decision of Hamberger was based on the fact that Shell Refining adhered to AS4308. If it wasnt prepared to adhere to the standard, Hamberger's decision may well have been to only allow saliva screening. The AIRC decision will result in the end of intrusive urine based drug testing that shows absolutely no evidence of any level of impairment. As Deputy Hamberger stated “on an interim basis” could urine testing be performed, it is clear that all concerned knows that it is only allowed on safety grounds but will be deemed unreasonable in the very near future, in favour of saliva testing to AS4760.

One other point that I can see in Hamberger’s decision as an argument for employees is that Hamberger allowed urine testing because the Australian labs are not yet accredited to Australian standard AS4760. To me this means that Hamberger deemed urine testing to AS4380 as being reasonable since labs are qualified to AS4380 however, employer’s should ensure that their own drug testing regime stands up to scrutiny of the Australian standards. A single broken link in the “chain of custody” of the urine sample is as good as a null & void test.
The decision of Hamberger was based on the fact that Shell Refining adhered to AS4308. If it wasnt prepared to adhere to the standard, Hamberger’s decision may well have been to only allow saliva screening.

]]>