Canadian Occupational Safety (COS) magazine is the premier workplace health and safety publication in Canada. We cover a wide range of topics ranging from office to heavy industry, and from general safety management to specific workplace hazards.
Issue link: https://digital.thesafetymag.com/i/356771
May 2013 21 effi ciently as possible? e fi rst step is to have a good policy in place. "One of the primary mistakes that employers make is treating drug and alcohol issues only as disciplinary matters without providing proper accommodation to a person. is creates diffi culties from an employ- ment law perspective," says Bolton. "Another problem is not having a drug and alcohol policy in place. It's a great opportunity for employ- ers to set out expectations, determine whether there's going to be drug and alcohol testing and, if so, under what circumstances." Nadine Wentzell, a workplace drug and alcohol consultant, agrees, adding the people who typically are confronted with drug and alcohol issues in the workplace are safety managers and human resources departments. Since they may not be experts in dealing with addiction, the company policy has to be clearly worded and easy to enforce. "A good employment policy is key—people have to be able to read it and understand it," she says. "So when you're sitting down to write the policy, take time to understand what's going on. It has to be customized to your workplace—don't just copy something from the Internet. e Internet can be a starting point, but make it work for your workplace." A good policy should outline whether or not drug and alcohol use are allowed in the workplace and, if so, under what circumstances. For example, in social situations—like company holiday parties—what is allowed and what isn't? If someone is caught drink- ing on the job, what will the repercussions be? When will drug or alcohol testing be permitted, if at all? If someone has an addiction, what resources are available to them—and what will a return-to-work program entail? A good policy should also incorporate an employee assistance program—a confi dential program that allows employees to obtain access to counsellors and additional resources to assist them in dealing with problems like an addiction. While many companies already may have such a program in place, if you're focused on combatting substance abuse specifi cally, you may want to implement additional measures. "Relying on your EAP exclusively as it relates to drug use at work is insuffi cient—it's not an eff ective enough tool," says Dan Demers, operations manager of occupational health at CannAmm, a company that helps organizations manage risk, liability and improve workplace safety in relation to substance abuse. " e EAP provider is tied to confi dentiality—if an employee isn't going to counselling, they can't tell the employer that the employee is posing a risk to the workplace. It puts the workplace and public at risk." Demers suggests employers initiate their own "fi t for work" policies in conjunction with the support off ered by the EAP. If an individual is fl agged for having an abuse issue, a typical employer-initiated program would send that individual to a third-party substance abuse expert for an assessment to deter- mine if there's an addiction or if the individual was simply "breaking the rules" by engaging in social drug or alcohol use on the job. If it's the latter, the employer has no legal obligation to accommodate, and can deal with them in accor- dance with the company's drug and alcohol policy. However, many employers choose to accommodate fi rst-time violations regardless of whether there is an underlying disability. If there is an addiction, however, the substance abuse expert will issue a recommendation—follow-up tests, Alcohol Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings, treatment, education or counselling—and outline a return-to-work process. " e diff erence between just going through an EAP and this process is the employer has the ability to make sure the employee is complying. ey don't know any details, but they know if they're adhering to the rec- ommendations," says Demers. " ere's a lot more involvement on the part of the employer in the return- to-work process to ensure safety in the workplace." To test or not to test? If the workplace can be classifi ed as "dangerous" or if the employees are in safety-sensitive positions, the employer can opt to test for drug and alcohol use. If the employer chooses to implement such tools as part of its drug and alcohol policy, it's important to remem- ber they are designed to identify potential risks—not uncover people who are inebriated on the job. " ese individuals are in a safety-sensitive role. Any lapse in concentration or focus could result in serious injury, harm or death of another person. So their role, by defi nition, is diff erent than others," says Demers. "Being part of that role, they have to ensure they're making good decisions on the job, and they come to work fi t for duty. When you look at a drug test, you're looking at potential risk. You're not looking for impairment—you're looking for risk." Demers explains there are no statistics that can scientifi cally prove substance abuse causes work-related injury. However, one can prove that an individual with a positive test poses a risk to the workplace. As an example, all of CannAmm's clients that have integrated drug testing into their safety programs have a total recordable injury frequency rate that is better than industry standards. Clients that perform random testing have experienced drops in positive test rates a er two years of testing. For Can- nAmm's U.S. Department of Transportation clients, that amounts to a 66 per cent decrease in positive rates a er fi ve years. And when comparing Alberta clients (a province that has more readily embraced workplace drug and alco- hol testing) to Ontario clients, CanAmm reports a 6.1 per cent post-incident positive rate, compared to Ontario's 13.9 per cent. It would appear, Demers says, drug and alcohol test- ing does act as a deterrent, but determining whether it's a tool that would fi t into a company's safety pro- gram is a judgment call by individual companies. If drug and alcohol abuse isn't a serious problem, identifying behavioural clues and ensuring there's a proper process in place to document actions taken may be all a company needs to identify a potential risk in the workplace. If, however, an employer would like to introduce testing but are concerned about how exist- ing employees will take it, involve them in the process. "A lot of employers fear there will be a backlash, but in most of the workplaces I go to, the employees want random testing. I have to explain to them that it's not an option," Wentzell says. "It's easier to roll out a policy to employees if they have the opportunity to be involved. Get employee feedback. Put together focus groups to determine safety sensitive positions. It also helps to bring in someone external, to explain the benefi ts to them." It's important to train and educate supervisors and managers on the purpose of testing—and how to cor- rectly address the sensitive nature of it. One of the main reasons the Irving case is facing the Supreme Court is because an employee didn't like the manner in which he was approached to take a random alco- hol test. "If a test comes back negative, it highlights the need for further testing—the employee could have been fatigued or have a medical condition. Someone who has an untreated diabetic condition might have the same signs and symptoms as someone under the infl uence," says Demers. "We expect tests to come back negative. at's why it's important that it's done in a dignifi ed manner. You want to remove the risk, not attack the individual. at's not the goal." Vanessa Chris is a freelance writer based in Toronto. You can contact her at vachris@rogers.com Quality You Can See! © Use iPreserve to treat all makes and sizes of self- contained eyewash stations. ,W·VÀUVWZLWKD36 month shelf life (not just 24)! Go to www.a-medsupply.com to receive a free self-audit! The ONLY sterlie eyewash concentrate on the market … A-Med (5746).indd 1 13-04-17 12:17 PM NUMBERS GAME According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, drug abuse in the workplace costs employers: • Five times more in workers' compensation claims (in a given year) • 30 per cent greater employee turnover • 40 versus 4 days of employee absenteeism • 36 times higher employee theft • 300 to 400 per cent more health-care benefi t utilization • Higher risk of workplace violence (66 per cent of those arrested in such incidences test positive)