6. Sectoral and workplace agreements

The Labour Research Department (LRD) asked union reps from a range of sectors and industries to send us examples of their drug and alcohol policies. These revealed that they have often found negotiating workplace policies difficult because of the peculiarities of their own industry or sector.

Some policies were draconian, threatening dismissal and failing to offer support. In one case, the policy stated that employees were not allowed to enter pubs, bars or clubs and not permitted to buy or drink alcohol whilst wearing a company uniform.

However, many other cases contained examples of good practice, some of which are reproduced below. LRD is particularly grateful to representatives from general union Unite, public services union UNISON, teaching unions the NUT and ATL, lecturers’ union UCU, firefighters’ union FBU and Unite, RMT and Balpa transport unions for sending examples of agreements.

Local councils

Local councils employ a wide range of workers, including those directly employed in local government, teachers and others in education, as well as fire service personnel and the voluntary sector. Many councils have policies that apply to all these categories of employee while others have separate agreements.

The tone of policies received by LRD were generally sympathetic and acknowledged that substance abuse is a complex problem. For example, the Lincolnshire County Council policy states that:

“Alcohol and drug abuse…is not just an individual problem but a social problem with social causes and implications, some of which may be associated with work.”

Similarly, both Oldham Council’s and Devon County Council’s policies aim to “create a working environment that encourages staff to admit to a problem” and encourage employees who may be misusing, or are affected by the misuse of drugs or alcohol “to come forward and seek help.”

This was also a feature of policies aimed specifically at firefighters, one of the most safety-critical in this sector. At Royal Berkshire:

“The Brigade recognises that alcohol abuse and drug addiction are illnesses requiring medical treatment. Employees who suffer from such addictions will therefore be given support and assistance provided they are actively following the advice of their doctor and undertaking treatment…”

And at Lothian and Borders:

“The Brigade recognises alcohol or drugs dependency primarily as a health-related problem, even though such dependency may interfere with the employee’s job performance or efficiency.”

The policy also recognises that “such a problem requires specialist help, and will encourage any employee who suspects or knows that they have a dependency to seek help and treatment voluntarily.”

Local government policies received by LRD (such as Nottingham County Council and Bolton Council for schools) generally had comprehensive lists of support agencies with contact details, enabling workers to contact outside information themselves.

The scope of most policies in local government was universal — applying to all employees and contractors. However, not all were imposed rigidly. For example, the Birmingham City Council alcohol policy states that it “will not apply to isolated instances of drink related absence or inefficiency, but with patterns of deterioration occurring over a period of time. ”

Management

Some policies explicitly advise managers to deal with substance abuse problems sympathetically, rather than as simply a disciplinary matter. Lincolnshire County Council’s policy requires managers to “identify any aspects of the working environment which could lead to substance misused problems and, if possible, change them.” The policy states that: “Substance misuse should not constitute grounds for dismissal, unless performance levels or actions reach an unacceptable level.”

Similarly, at Royal Berkshire:

“The Brigade recognises that disciplinary procedures alone, or ignoring the problem are not appropriate responses. There needs to be an agreed response, known to all employees, which will allow the employee every opportunity to tackle and overcome the problem, with minimum embarrassment to the individual.”

Many policies (such as Oldham Council) explicitly state that managers should receive “education and training” to help them identify and deal with the misuse of drugs/alcohol in the workplace.

Testing is generally not used by local councils either pre-employment (except firefighters) or randomly. The best policies state that when there is testing “for-cause” or after an accident/incident, a trade union representative should be present.

Rehabilitation

A number of council policies stated that rehabilitation was important. The best example came from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.

One particular concern is absence from work. The best policies tended to treat time off as sick leave, although some allowed for counselling during work time on full pay.

For example, Bolton Council’s policy for schools states that:

“Attendance at counselling sessions with the appropriate support agency will be permitted during working hours if the employee is considered fit enough to remain in work.”

Similarly, Lothian and Borders fire and rescue service policy states that:

“Where the employee requires time off to undergo treatment with a recognised agency within normal working hours, this employee will be granted leave of absence with pay to the extent agreed between the Brigade, the employee and the agency concerned to enable the recovery programme to be undertaken.”

The best drugs and alcohol policies explicitly state the role of trade union representatives in the process. Lincolnshire County Council specifically includes the role of unions in supporting employees, while Devon County Council states that unions should “provide appropriate representation” as well as support and advice.

The National Health Service

Unions in the NHS have negotiated an enlightened approach with employers. Taking alcohol and other drugs out of the NHS workplace, published in 2001 by the Department of Health, focuses on rehabilitation, occupational health support, self-referral for assistance and addresses poor work performance as a capability issue not a disciplinary issue. The guidance says: “Random testing of staff as a tool for managing substance misuse is not considered an appropriate form of action for NHS employers at this time.”

In general, the tone of policies received by LRD was compassionate. For example, Tameside NHS Trust states that:

“Any person identified as having misuse problems will be treated sympathetically, reasonably but positively and be offered advice and other necessary assistance in overcoming the problem.”

Similarly, the Borders NHS Trust policy aims to “create a climate which removes the tendency to conceal, deny, and cover up the problem, whilst providing management, employees and staff side with confidence when confronting substance/alcohol-induced loss of capacity.”

The best policies apply to all staff. For example, the Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust policy “applies to all staff of the Trust. All contractors, volunteers, students and visiting staff, including those on honorary contracts, working on Trust premises are required to comply with the Trust’s Substance Misuse in the Workplace Policy.” And the Morecombe Bay NHS Trust policy “applies equally to all employees and its provisions must be adhered to by contractors working on any of the Trust’s sites.”

Management

However, there are cases where managers are advised not to apply the policy. For example, the Borders NHS Trust policy “does not apply to employees who, because of excessive indulgence of alcohol or substance misuse on random occasions, contravene our standards of safety and conduct.”

NHS managers in Tameside are advised to identify “any aspects of the work situation which could be contributing to substance misuse and change them if appropriate.” They are also instructed to create an atmosphere that encourages employees to identify alcohol and substance misuse problems at work since the safety of themselves and others may be affected by “inappropriate acts and omissions.” The South Essex NHS Partnership policy tells managers that “an informal discussion in relation to these issues should never turn into a disciplinary meeting.”

Morecombe Bay NHS Trust makes an important distinction between incidents of misconduct arising from alcohol consumption or drug misuse and poor work performance and/or health problems associated with alcohol/drug misuse. Its policy states that: “In general, the former will be dealt with as a disciplinary matter, whilst the latter will be dealt with as a capability issue.”

Tameside NHS Trust policy makes an important statement to managers about their approach:

“An alcohol or substance misuse problem at work will initially be regarded as a health problem rather than an immediate cause for disciplinary action. This is an assurance to employees, whose conduct may be impairing their work, that the Trust is endeavouring to help with any problems without initial recourse to disciplinary action.”

Similarly Borders NHS Trust recognises that “substance and alcohol-related problems are areas of health and social concern.”

Rehabilitation

NHS policies tend to contain significant provision for rehabilitation. The Morecombe Bay NHS Trust’s policy states that:

“Treatment can result in a full and lasting recovery. However, should an individual relapse and problems recur, the case should be reviewed sympathetically and, in the light of medical opinion, the possibility of further treatment considered.”

The Borders NHS Trust states that: “Every effort should be made to ensure that on completion of the rehabilitation programme employees are able to return to their substantive post.”

The policy allows for a return to work without going straight back to full duties, and specifies “suitable alternative employment” and “modification of the duties/responsibilities/hours of their substantive post.” It also allows for absence from work necessary to facilitate treatment, which is counted as sick leave.

Union representatives at Borders NHS Trust stold LRD that the policy was developed by a committee that included a union representative. The resulting draft policies were offered to all union reps for comment, then re-drafted where necessary, re-circulated and signed off. This has facilitated both a coherent policy and its smooth implementation in the Trust.

Manufacturing industry

Drugs and alcohol policies in the manufacturing sector generally appear to be stricter than those in the public sector. This partly reflects safety-critical issues, but may also reflect more unpredictable management responses.

A senior union shop steward from Belfast told LRD that his concern about drug and alcohol policies “are that they can be used to bully or cull the workforce” and emphasised that it is not the drug and alcohol policy itself but the way that companies implement them that matters. He said the key questions union reps need to ask are: “Who is classed as a responsible person to carry out the alcohol test; what company is employed to carry out the drugs test; where are the test results kept, if you pass a test; will there still be a record of you being tested; and will random testing be carried out.”

LRD received some good examples of policies from unionised workplaces. For example, at Rolls Royce in Dounreay, reps said that although they were wary of the drug and alcohol policy when it was introduced, the union had never had any trouble with it in practice.

And some policies set a good tone. The alcohol policy at car firm Ford states that:

“The intent and spirit of this Joint Statement are to offer information and assistance to employees with drinking problems in a sympathetic and helpful manner”.

Similarly, at the Devonport Royal dockyard, the starting point is “the assumption that the individual will remain in their current post throughout the period of rehabilitation.”

Management

Some policies give management leeway to avoid immediate disciplinary action. The policy at Messier-Dowty, which makes aircraft landing gear, allows for the disciplinary procedure to be suspended or modified by agreement between the Company and the affected employee “to allow for investigation of the possibility and method of treatment for the employees alcohol, drug or substance abuse problem.”

Similarly at Kier civil engineering and infrastructure firm, there are two routes of action depending on whether an employee acknowledges that they have a problem with substance misuse, or whether they are found to be under the influence at work. The former involves support; the latter is disciplinary.

Many private sector manufacturing firms operate random drug and alcohol testing programmes. In a 2005 case reported in Hazards magazine, construction multinational Laing O’Rourke, introduced a random drug and alcohol testing programme — and sacked an extraordinary 10% of workers tested over a two year period. However, in some cases, such as Devonport Royal Dockyard, random testing is carried out only for those on the safety-critical employee register.

Rehabilitation

There is also recognition in some policies of the importance of rehabilitation. At Kier civil engineering firm, a maximum of three relapses is specified in the policy. The policy at Delphi, which supplies mobile electronics and transportation systems, includes the following statement:

“The Company will endeavour to ensure that advice and specialist help are made available to any employee who feels that he or she has an alcohol, drug or substance dependency problem. Any employee who seeks the assistance of the Company in finding treatment for such an alcohol or drugs problem has the Company’s complete assurance of confidentiality.”

One of the best agreements on time off is at the Devonport Royal Dockyard, where treatment that requires absences from work is treated as special paid leave. Messier-Dowty allows workers a period of absence from work for agreed treatment under the company’s normal sick pay arrangements. At engineering company Kier, being sent home after voluntarily acknowledging the problem is counted as sickness absence, and the firm allows “reasonable time off” for appointments.

Ford has a similar provision for sick leave. Unions reps reported a case where a member was found drunk at work and taken home several times. He was eventually arrested and imprisoned for drink driving. However, backed by the union, the firm continued to employ him — except during his imprisonment. On release he was suspended on full pay for several months, before finally getting a medical retirement based upon service of nearly 30 years. This is both a good example of how employers should proceed at work and one that has been effective in helping the individual: union reps report that the member has stopped drinking and is rebuilding his life.

Transport

LRD received examples of policies from the rail, bus, airlines and shipping industries which revealed transport to be a sector where policies are strict because of the safety-critical nature of much of the work.

This situation is well illustrated by a case from 2003-04 involving five track workers, members of the RMT, working for Metronet infrastructure firm, who were sacked following the discovery of empty beer cans in a cabin at Farringdon underground station. Metronet admitted having no evidence that the men were responsible for the cans and they proved negative in two drug and alcohol tests. However, they still lost their jobs. Despite strike action and taking an employment tribunal case, the union was unable to win the track workers jobs back.

However, there are some positive examples from the sector such as the groundbreaking peer intervention programme working for airline pilots (see Chapter 4).

Management

One of the best examples came from the Stena shipping line, whose policy states that:

“As a prudent and progressive employer, the Company acknowledges that employees suffering from alcohol problems may need medical guidance and cannot be dealt with satisfactorily by Company imposed controls or disciplinary measures alone.”

The policy applies to all company employees, concessionaires and contractors whilst onboard ship or carrying out duties connected with the actual operation of any of the departments onboard. However, it recognises that “shore-based employees involved in work related travel onboard may wish to purchase alcohol and this will be permitted providing that it is not consumed on the vessel.”

The Stena policy also states that: “The Company is prepared to recognise that alcoholism or alcohol related problems may be a disorder of health.”However, this is not taken into consideration in disciplinary proceedings unless the individual has advised the company of his/her problems, sought treatment prior to the disciplinary incident and complied in all respects with recommendations.

Unannounced random testing is carried out across the transport sector with London Underground and First Great Western testing five per cent of its employees annually, while First Bus tests 10% a year.

Rehabilitation

There were some examples of rehabilitation included in the policies received by LRD. At First Bus, where an employee voluntarily advises the company that they have a drug or alcohol related problem and this is acknowledged by the company’s doctor or occupational health specialist, then it promises to offer assistance with rehabilitation. The policy adds that: “If the conditions of rehabilitation set by the Company are not broken by the employee, disciplinary action will not be taken.” As part of the rehabilitation process, First Bus employees are promised “reasonable paid leave” to attend approved rehabilitation clinics, subject to their commitment to the rehabilitation process.

Similarly, Network Rail’s policy encourages “all members of the workforce to tell their supervisor, manager or Human Resources department if they have or believe they may be developing a drug or alcohol related problem”. It states:

“We will always support and assist any employee who reports such a problem to their manager or Human Resources department prior to being selected for drugs and alcohol testing, so long as they remain within the requirements of any agreed programme of rehabilitation.”

At first Great Western part of the rehabilitation process includes employees being given “reasonable paid leave to attend approved rehabilitation clinics”, subject to the employee’s commitment to the rehabilitation process. Similarly, at London Underground, employees who are unfit for work whilst undergoing such treatment are regarded as being on sick leave and are eligible for normal sick pay arrangements.