The changing focus in Australia: involving an EAP and mandating referral, treatment, and rehabilitation were key to the approval of a drug testing program proposed by one of Australia's largest employers.

The nature of work has long been associated with the use and abuse of alcohol and illicit drugs. Workplaces associated with high stress, job insecurity, long hours, and isolation (or combinations of these factors) are seen as prime catalysts for substance abuse. Typically, such workplaces are associated with blue collar industries such as mining, where the work is often intense, stressful, and dangerous and undertaken in isolated communities located some distance from family and friends.

Thus, when employers look to focus on the issue of drug use and abuse on the grounds of maintaining a productive and safe workplace, it is increasingly clear they must first examine the workplaces they have shaped. The culture and expectations management sets are central to the use of alcohol and other drugs and the way they are managed.

This article examines these issues within the context of one of Australia's largest businesses, in which the establishment of an employee assistance program (EAP) provided a central focus for the development of what is considered a "best practice" workplace drug management policy

A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE

Substance abuse and the potential dangers it poses in the workplace are well documented. While acknowledging the lack of accurate data concerning drug use in the workplace, Wilke (1998) conservatively estimated that substance abuse in Australia imposes--

* Direct costs (predominantly in terms of lost productivity) amounting to some $3.7 billion annually; and

* Indirect costs (for example, through employee turnover, poor decision making, and employee stress) of $10 billion annually.

The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) found that 22 percent of the working population drank alcohol at harmful levels and up to 27 percent experienced alcohol-related problems annually. According to International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates, between 3 and 15 percent of fatal work accidents in Australia are related to drug and alcohol use (Miletic 2004; Wright 2004). A 2002 survey by an Australian health company, Health Works, found that 80 percent of employers supported mandatory drug and alcohol testing in the event of a workplace accident (Thomas 2002).

Mandatory testing has become a contentious issue in the Australian workplace in recent times, with several high-profile disputes linked to the implementation of drug testing in the workplace (Holland and Wickham 2002). However, as Allsop and Pidd (2001) note, "In a variety of cultures, formal and informal pressures still encourage weekly after-work team building and relaxation based on alcohol consumption."

Indeed, a study of alcohol consumption in the Pilbara mining region of Western Australia found that alcohol consumption was 64 percent above the state level (Daly and Philp 1995). A subsequent study of alcohol consumption by Midford, Marsden, Phillips, and Lake (1997) in mining-related worksites found that consumption was greater than the national average. Drinking in the highest risk category was on a par with the national average, but binge drinking was found to be more prevalent and was related to shift work and isolation from family.

Research is increasingly identifying a link between the nature of work and drug use. Issues of control, alienation, and stress, combined with individuals' perceptions of their powerlessness, have been identified as factors related to drug use in the workplace (Ames and Grube 1999). As Midford (2001) argues:

   In the workplace, holding the view
   that drug use is a problem for the
   individual worker is functional from
   the point of view of employers
   because it avoids any exploration of
   how the workplace may contribute to
   the problem. However, to gain an
   understanding of workplace drug
   problems, one must look at a full
   range of factors that influence patterns
   of drug use.

In this context, Broken Hill Pry Ltd. (BHP) set out to develop a program of drug management that would be seen as fair and equitable to all stakeholders.

ENSURING EMPLOYEE SAFETY

The Pilbara region of Western Australia is located 1,600 kilometers north of Perth. BHP produces approximately 65 million tons of iron ore per annum from mines in this region. Overall, BHP Iron Ore has more than 1,500 employees and 1,300 contractors.

On the recommendations of a coronial inquiry following a fatal drug-related accident in 1994 and after several other incidents, BHP sought to introduce drug and alcohol testing in 1996. Following the introduction of voluntary programs, BHP attempted to implement a mandatory testing program at each of its sites in the Pilbara. The introduction of mandatory testing stemmed from a recognition that BHP had a responsibility to ensure the safety of all its employees.

The mandatory program proposed by BHP required employees to submit to random drug testing as a condition of employment. If the result was positive, the employee was liable to be sent home on paid special leave on the first occasion. If the employee tested positive a second time within a period of two years, s/he was liable to be sent home on unpaid special leave. On the third occasion a positive result was recorded within the same time period, the worker's employment would be the subject of discussions with the company.

Education was a central part of the program, as was the provision of assistance to employees with a suspected alcohol or drug dependency As the manager of public affairs for BHP Iron Ore, Judith Thompson, explained in a radio interview in 1996, "The policy includes education about the effects of drug and alcohol abuse and also offers counseling to people should they have trouble controlling their use of these substances" (ABC Radio National 1996).

In 1997, BHP held discussions with employees and the four unions representing the workforce regarding the implementation of the program. The unions held separate meetings with their members. A valid majority of employees approved the implementation of the program, with the exception of one union: the West Australian branch of the Construction, Mining, Timberyards, Sawmills and Woodworkers Union. Their members at the Newman and Finucane Island mines voted overwhelmingly to reject the program.

Despite lengthy negotiations with employees and the four unions, BHP did not implement mandatory testing because it was regarded as impractical to apply the program to only part of the workforce. In addition, the three unions that supported the program did so on the proviso that it apply to all employees (WAIRC 1998).

The dissenting union was initially opposed to both alcohol and drug testing, but by the time the case reached the West Australian Industrial Relations Commission (WAIRC), the union no longer objected to alcohol testing. Drug testing, on the other hand, was argued to be an unreasonable intrusion of an individual's privacy The union also objected to employees using prescribed or over-the-counter drugs that might impair their work performance and being required to report this drug use to the company, and to the company maintaining records of this drug use for a minimum of two years (WAIRC 1998).

A HOLISTIC APPROACH 

The dispute over the introduction and implementation of drug testing at three BHP sites was referred to the WAIRC by BHP after two years of consultation. The commission was asked to consider the program as a whole and specifically whether it was fair and reasonable.

Both parties used expert witnesses to debate the extent to which drugs adversely affect safety in the workplace. The union argued that very little is known about the impact of drugs on workplace safety and that some drugs could have positive effects. While accepting that little is known about the effect of drugs, BHP argued that the effects of drugs on cognitive functions, psychomotor performance, and other smiled tasks strongly predict serious adverse effects on workplace safety (WAIRC 1998).

In June 1998, the WAIRC endorsed a requirement that BHP employees working at the three sites submit to random drug testing. The commission considered it reasonable for BHP to implement a scheme designed to detect, so far as possible, the level of consumption of drugs by employees and to implement procedures to deter the use of drugs in the workplace. The commission ruled that the introduction of drug and alcohol testing as part of BHP's attempt to satisfy its responsibilities to provide a safe workplace for employees was not unreasonable, harsh, or unfair (WAIRC 1998).

In making its decision, the WAIRC identified several elements of the program as important, including the EAP-related provisions for education, counseling, and rehabilitation. The fact that the penal elements of the program were subordinated to education and rehabilitation was a key factor in the commission's decision. For example, the program provided that after two years, any positive reading would be expunged from an employee's record (WAIRC 1998).

BHP's program was held to be part of a holistic approach to occupational health and safety Education, rehabilitation, and assistance are defining characteristics of the program and were significant in the commission's endorsement of BHP's random testing program as fair and reasonable. This case is now seen as a "best practice" model in the industry because it illustrates the advantages of embracing a supportive rather than punitive approach.

This approach is backed by empirical research linking employee education and assistance and the reduction and prevention of drug abuse (Desjardine and Duska 1997; Oliver 1994). A drug testing policy that is not linked to a well-established rehabilitation program is likely to attack the symptoms of drug use and/or abuse rather than addressing the underlying causes. This can result in the removal of the employee from the workplace but not the illicit drug use that may enter the workplace with a replacement employee.

Providing for education and rehabilitation in the implementation of a drug testing program reflects a holistic approach to understanding and managing the issue of substance abuse in the workplace. Moreover, such an approach is more likely to be in the long-term interest of employers as it entails identifying the underlying dysfunctions in the workplace and its operation.

References

ABC Radio National. 1996. "The Business Report: Protecting Privacy in the Workplace," 18 March.

Allsop, S., and K. Pidd. 2001. "The Nature of Drug-Related Harm in the Workplace." In S. Allsop, M. Phillips, and C. Calogero (eds.), Drug and Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. Melbourne: IP Communications.

Ames, G., and J.W. Grube. 1999. "Alcohol Availability and Workplace Drinking: Mixed Method Analysis." Journal of Studies of Alcohol, 60 (3): 383-393.

Daly, A., and A. Philp. 1995. "Alcohol Consumption in Western Australia, July 1991 to June 1992." Perth, Western Australia: Health Department of Western Australia.

DesJardine, J.R., and R.F. Duska. 2001. "Drug Testing in Employment." In T.L. Beauchamp and N.E. Bowie (eds.), Ethical Theory and Business: 6th edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Greenburg, E., and S. Greenburg. 1995. "Work Alienation and Problem Alcohol Behavior." Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36 (1): 83-102.

Holland, P.J., and M. Wickham. 2001. "Drug Testing in the Workplace: The Case of the South Blackwater Mine." The Management Case Study Journal, 1 (2): 1-17.

Midford, R. 2001. "The Nature and Extent of Drug-Related Harm in the Workplace." In S. Allsop, M. Phillips, and C. Calogero (eds.), Drug and Work: Responding to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Australian Workplaces. Melbourne. IP Communications.

Midford, R., Marsden, M. Phillips, and Lake. 1997. "Workforce Alcohol Consumption: Patterns at Two Pilbara Mining-Related Worksites." Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Australia and New Zealand, 13: 267-274.

Miletic, B. 2004. "Dilemma of drug testing in the workplace." Safety Solutions. Wahroonga, New South Wales, Australia: Westwick-Farrow publishing.

National Health and Medical Research Council. 1997. "Workplace Injury and Alcohol." Journal of Applied Business Research, 8 (2): 127-132.

Oliver, W. 1994. "Fight Drugs with Knowledge." Training & Development, 48 (5): 105-108.

Thomas, I. 2002. "Drug testing a red herring." Victorian Trades Hall Council Occupational Health and Safety Representatives, http://www.ohsrep.org.au.

Western Australia Industrial Relations Commission. 1998. BHP Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Construction, Mining, Energy, Timberyards, Sawmills and Woodworkers Union. 19 June.

Wright, P. 2004. "Alcohol and drugs in the workplace." HR Connection, 18.

Wilkie, R. 1998. "Is drug testing of workers an appropriate gambit?" http://www.eap.com.au/wilkie.html.

Peter Holland is a senior lecturer in the Department of Management and the Australian Centre for Research on Employment and Work (ACREW) at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. He can be reached at [e-mail].