![[Basket]](images/basket.png){kind=small}
Your order![[cover image]](images/issue/BK201707.jpg)
Drug-driving limits
[ch 5: pages 92-93]“Drug-drive” rules in England and Wales set limits at very low levels for eight drugs commonly associated with illegal use, such as cannabis and cocaine, as well as eight prescription drugs. These are clonazepam, diazepam, flunitrazepam, lorazepam, oxazepam, temazepam, methadone and morphine.
The limits set for these drugs exceed normal prescribed doses. Government advice is that the vast majority of people can drive as they normally would, so long as:
• they are taking their medicine in accordance with the advice of a healthcare professional and/or as printed in the accompanying leaflet; and
• their driving is not impaired.
There is a medical defence if a driver has been taking medication as directed and is found to be over the limit, but not impaired. Advice from the Department of Transport’s dedicated road safety website THINK! is that drivers who are taking prescribed medication at high doses should carry evidence, such as prescriptions slips, with them when driving, in case they are asked to take a test by the police.
The TUC says the limits are not safety-based. It fears they could lead to a “big increase” in drug testing at work and in workers being disciplined or fired for being over the limit, despite no evidence of an impairment. It advises those working in a safety-critical job or who drive for work to let their employer know if they are taking any medication, as well as reading the instructions and seeking advice from their pharmacist or doctor.
Details of the limits are available at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/drug-driving#table-of-drugs-and-limits.
TUC guidance for safety reps on drug testing at work is available on its website (https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/DrugTestingintheWorkplace.pdf).
Falsely accused bus driver wins compensation
A bus driver falsely accused of driving under the influence of cocaine won compensation for unfair dismissal after he was wrongly dismissed from First Bristol Ltd for “gross misconduct” having tested positive for cocaine in a workplace drug test.
General union Unite member Alan Bailes had handled several hundred pounds of cash, which research shows is commonly contaminated with cocaine. First Bristol used saliva tests on its employees to identify whether they had consumed illegal substances. But Bailes was not invited to wash his hands before the drug test and had to handle the swabs used to collect his saliva sample both before and after. The fact that he had eaten his sandwiches just before the test increased the chance of hand-to-mouth contamination.
There is no national standard or government endorsed cut-off level for saliva testing and, as a result, it is sometimes considered unreliable, particularly when compared with urine or hair testing, which is regularly accepted by the courts.
At his personal expense, Bailes provided a hair specimen covering a history of 90 days and the result was negative for cocaine and its metabolites. Despite this new independent evidence, First Bristol refused to reinstate Mr Bailes, who had no previous disciplinary record in his 22-year career history.
An employment tribunal ruled that Bailes should receive the maximum compensation that could be awarded for his unfair dismissal. It entirely accepted that his future career prospects had been affected by the unfair dismissal, and that there was an onus on the employer to carry out proper investigations before dismissing such a long-serving employee with an impeccable record.