When is Suspicion Unreasonable?

There is a common parlance in most drug testing programs called "Reasonable Suspicion Testing". It is a safety process designed to ensure that indications of drug use in the workplace are not ignored but are actioned at least initially by a drug test to unequivocally determine whether drugs (or alcohol) are present and may be contributing to the behaviour causing concern. Clearly, if someone is engaged in behaviours that are out of character, out of context and give rise to safety or even performance concerns, then the behaviours can't be ignored.

We recently had RUOK day. If you see someone behaving out the ordinary, such that it gives rise to concern, then you shouldn't ignore it. Have a chat, ask are you OK, don't disregard it. You might just save a life.

So what are some of the behaviours that you might see that might give cause to be concerned?

• The first is speech. Are they talking coherently and normally based on your previous interactions with that person?
• Are their eyes bloodshot, glazed or watery?
• Is their expression normal and within context? Are they panicked or confused?
• Do they walk normally for them or are they unsteady, slow or uncoordinated?
• How do they look overall? Are they grinding their teeth or scratching excessively? Do they smell of alcohol or are they untidy or dishevelled?
• Are they dazed, uncommunicative, uncooperative, defiant, argumentative or morose?

So reading through this list of behaviours, it's important to remember my first point about context. There are medical reasons that might explain some of the above behaviours and then there might be a social context. For example, I am diabetic and I have had a couple of hypoglycemic episodes over the years. The episodes can give rise to some of these behaviours and they might be behaviours that are not what you expect. On the other hand, I have spent time with people who have gone through marriage breakdown. Some of these behaviours can be related to the enormous pain of relationship breakdown or some other social or family matter.

The people we work with, supervise or report to are not machines. They experience illness, social and family matters and just occasionally engage in harmful behaviours including substance use. There is a context to our behaviours and when we are going through something, we need to be engaged with empathetically and sensitively.

The important point about these "episodes" in our life is that sometimes, regardless of our context, we are unsafe at work. We can't work safely if we are involved in high risk work and we are having a hypoglycemic episode, or we have indulged in a substance, or arguably, if we are sleep deprived as a result of relationship breakdown. Someone stepping in to check on us is important.

It is important to remember that as employers and employees, we have a mutual obligation for our safety at work. To ensure safety, employers can engage with a range of safety mechanisms. Testing is a mechanism not an accusation. It is a safety mechanism to rule out drugs and therefore, it should be seen as routine and not out of the ordinary. Nevertheless, there is no point in performing testing unless there is a genuine concern that drugs or alcohol are present in the person's system. Asking if someone is OK might be a precursor to simply saying, "Mate, you seem to be having a rough time of it. Maybe you need to take a bit of leave?" This reminder and gentle prod might make a world of difference if it is approached sensitively, gently and with a genuine concern for the person's wellbeing. Just remember, that work might also be the anchor they need right now too, if it can be performed safely.

If there is a reasonable, verifiable context such as diabetes, then drug testing is probably not necessary. It can still be employed to rule out drugs but should be only employed within a reasonable suspicion framework. If I am in the midst of a hypo, the last thing I would expect my employer to do would be to call for drug testing rather than an ambulance. Commonsense and a cautious approach is key.

There is still a vital consideration here. If the context is medical or some social matter, it may still be important to consider the safety of the worker. I cannot be permitted to perform high risk tasks in the middle of a diabetic episode or if I am extremely fatigued. This brings us back to RUOK. Sometimes, it is not OK for us to perform safety sensitive tasks given our context, mental or physical. That raises an entirely different set of considerations around suitable duties and redeployment, temporarily or permanently. That's a bit outside of our subject but suffice to say, there needs to genuine, adult engagement between employer and employee to find a safe, privacy honouring and non-discriminatory outcome. And that can be very difficult to achieve.

Testing is designed to rule out the presence of drugs and alcohol in a workplace. It should be recognised for the tool it is and applied within a safety context to enhance safety in the workplace whilst not being used indiscriminately and without context.