FINANCE
What a waste!
  In April 2009, the death of a successful City banker who leapt in front of an express train baffled everyone; his family, his colleagues and even the coroner. That was until it was realized that he suffered in silence with a terrible addiction; Alcohol.
The acquisitions manager at Allied Irish Bank, was an intelligent, hard-working and well-liked professional, his inquest was told. He was coping well at work and had been acting normally. But despite not being known as a heavy drinker, he went on a binge and hurled himself in front of a 75mph train. He was five times over the drink-drive limit.
The day previously he rang his office to say he was suffering from a headache and would not be coming in. The following day he also decided not to work but appeared to be 'relaxed and normal'. At 1.45pm, he rang his wife at work to tell her he was going for a walk because the weather was so good and a little over three hours later jumped in front of the train. Eyewitnesses saw him put a plastic bag containing two cans of beer on the platform at Wimbledon Station before leaping into the path of an oncoming train.
His boss described him as 'a strong professional, socially adept and well-liked'. There was no planning involved, he had no psychiatric history, he was obviously an intelligent, hard-working professional, and a well-liked person.
Managers in the financial sectors have been aware for many years that working in certain areas of banking can be very stressful. Consuming alcohol and other drugs is a common way of escaping pressure and stress. But even professionals can benefit from some life-style education on this subject. It is a very fine line we walk when using substances in this way. The slippery slope is never far away.
Screening business-critical positions
Drugs and alcohol policies are a commonplace practice in today's Commercial and Financial workplace, but Michelle Chamberlain, solicitor, reminds employers that testing employees without their consent may give rise to civil action as well as criminal prosecution. Drug and alcohol policies are now commonplace in many organisations but the question of drug and alcohol testing, particularly "random testing" at work, remains controversial. A recent report suggests that one in eight UK companies are now conducting drug testing in the workplace and four out of five employers would be prepared to test employees if they felt productivity was at stake.
However, employers should bear in mind that they have no right to test for drugs or alcohol without an employee's consent. Forcing an employee to take a test against their will may give rise to a number of employment-related claims as well as a charge of criminal assault. If an employer wishes to undertake screening, it should expressly provide for this in the employment contract - this will still not permit testing against an employee's will, but would place the employee in breach of contract if they refused to be tested. Even where such contractual permission exists, an employer should not assume that testing will be appropriate in all circumstances. To avoid falling foul of human rights and data protection legislation, an employer must be able to justify why recourse to testing in a given situation is considered necessary.
Human Rights and Wrongs
The process of testing, which often involves collecting urine, saliva and breath samples, raises significant issues of privacy and employers must take care not to infringe an individual's human rights. Most commonly cited in this context is the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) under the Human Rights Act 1998 ("HRA"). This right is qualified, which means that it can be overridden in certain circumstances, for example, in the interests of public safety or the prevention of disorder or crime.
Although private sector employees cannot bring direct claims for breach of the HRA (only public sector employees can do this), they could rely on this legislation in support of a tribunal complaint, for example, for being dismissed for refusing to undergo a test. This is because the HRA requires all courts, including employment tribunals, to interpret legislation in a way that is compatible with human rights.
Drugs & alcohol testing should be about assessing the competency of an employee to perform a specific job, not a way of controlling off duty behaviour where the employee's work is not affected. Generally, an employer should have a reasonable suspicion that an employee is suffering from an impairment which makes them a health and safety risk and/or unsuitable for their position. |
Construction 
Noviche
08715 262424
