A letter to Unite The Union

Guidance for work place representatives lessons to be learnt

Work Place drug testing

I am sixty years of age; I have worked for my employer for over 32 years and have been a member of Unite the union since I left school. In July 2008, I was falsely accused of taking heroin for reasons which I will explain later.  However, as incompetent as the so called forensic laboratory  were in testing my saliva sample, the main problem I encountered was the fact that Unite The Union had agreed with my employer to introduce tests without any technical expertise and worse still your union failed to install any basic safeguards. Are you aware that these tests have no legal standing and are not compliant with any national or international standards? Are you also aware of the life changing impact a positive drug test can have on your future employment and on the welfare of your family? Even murderers could not have been convicted on this evidence. Despite this, Unite the Union instead of safeguarding the interests of its members have signed into these Mickey Mouse tests. The truth is that the entire saliva testing process is false and biased.

What went wrong?

1. The  saliva test was not compliant with any national or international standard and has no legal standing
2. The collector was negligent in collecting the samples
3. The collector failed to collect sufficient volume
4. The laboratory was unable to identify the tamper proof seal on the sample tested?
5. There was no chain of custody for either sample
6. The instrument was 20% out of calibration in the 5ng/ml test range
7. The calibration report is not sequentially numbered and is a collaboration of different test runs
8. The quality control samples were located at the wrong end of the test range
9. The actual laboratory test result of 5ng/ml 6- acetylene morphine was in fact a negative result
10. There was no scientific justification for the additional use of multipliers to justify a positive result
11. It is a compulsory requirement under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration { SAMHSA USA}guidelines that a screening test is carried out and the sample must test positive before proceeding with a confirmation test. There is no evidence that a screening test was ever carried out? In fact the laboratory have never claimed to have carried out the test to any known standard !
12.  “A” test vial and anti tamper seal. The laboratory confirmed that they disposed of the evidence; a fact stated at the disciplinary hearing and recorded in the minutes, in essence they had thrown away the”A” sample evidence! Preventing a retest. 
13.  The laboratory did not carry out the test in accordance with their own method statement, consequently did not comply with its UKAS accreditation
14. The test technicians highlighted the fact that the sample had insufficient volume on the laboratory report, but then proceeded with the test? And then proceeded to issue a positive test result.
15.  The collection agency carried out the collection, the laboratory tested the sample,  and the Medical Review Officer [MRO] instructed by employer are all owned by the same company all trading under different names .  The fact that collection agency then proceeded to supervise and control the B test is proof that the entire process, far from been independent was a pretence.
16.  Personal Manger, refused to supply the laboratory reports and other documents associated with the drug test, and dismissed this evidence as irrelevant  this is confirmation that the entire investigation was a SHAM !

The Way Forward

Choosing a drug testing company is the easy part, monitoring performance and proof of external auditing will be the challenge, the following recommendations should be treated as the minimum requirements.

1. The minimum standard for all drug testing should be compliance with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration SAMHSA guidelines.
2. Saliva Tests do not comply with SAMSHA guidelines, reject this matrix. Urine is the obvious choice but only if it is analysed correctly.
3. External auditors independent of the drug testing company should be employed by the Employer to regularly check the laboratory for compliance with the drug testing standards.
4. Full chain of custody on all samples .i.e. Signature, time, date, condition of sample, volume in samples, record condition of tamper proof seals, no tick boxes,   written recording only. From person to person department to department. As stated on method statements but never complied with?
5. Demand that a Medical Review Officer be appointed. This person to be totally independent from all drug companies, and should be appointed to investigate for false positives, provide full medical examination of the donor and a complete audit of the drug analysis. A full written report provided to all parties.
6. Agree the thresholds in writing on all the different drug types, and an explanation/justification as to why these thresholds levels are required. For both the screening test and the confirmation test. For example 5ng/ml threshold for confirmation tests, is this low threshold appropriate for plant drivers?
7. Insist the same agreed thresholds are used on both the A the B samples. To explain the difference in test results some drug testing companies use the excuse that the sample has deteriorated to conceal the fact the tests are extremely volatile.  
8. The B sample is not to be tested, until copies of the lab reports on sample A, i.e. calibration records, chain of custody documents are to be made available to the donor. And the laboratory must confirm in writing that the test was carried out in full compliance with the agreed guidelines. An individual written letter referring to the specific test. Do not accept a general certificate as they use the word “consistent with”. Accusing a person of taking drugs is an extremely serious accusation, procedures must be in place and confirmed before going on to suspension. 
9. The B sample to be tested totally independent of the company that tested the A sample.  Employer, Union and Donor should agree which laboratory and instruct the lab directly, with the lab reports as listed above made public to all parties. The laboratories will resist this, as again they will not want the different results scrutinised. In my case the employer insisted that the test result on B sample be confidential to the drug company and the employer!  
10. Positive B Samples. These tests were never intended to be conclusive evidence, but part of a story. It will be necessary to then proceed to a hair test. Hair tests provide a long term overview up to ten months depending on length of hair, also they are less likely to show up natural substances such as poppy seeds
11. False positives. There are over two thousand drugs, medicines and foodstuffs that can cause false positives. You need to obtain a list from the drug testing companies of those products which influence the tests and obtain the list in writing. Do not accept a generic list, but list direct from the company directly relating to the question. They may resist this request, they will be anxious not to highlight how poor these tests really are. You need to protect your members from being falsely accused, as there are over 2500 products capable of providing false positives .useful web sites www.askdocweb.com/falsepositives.html also Drug detection times http://jobsearchtech.about.com/od/laborlaws/l/aa090301_5.htm
12. Hair Tests, cost £273. You must wait  6 weeks before removing the hair for test purposes. Note they test the shaft; they do not remove the follicles. These tests must be organised by the employer, drug testing companies will not take instructions from individuals.  
13. Who pays for all the tests? The employer. It’s not for the employee to prove his innocence, and besides the costs are relatively low and rarely required. The costs are more than off set by the employer’s reduction in insurance premiums.
14. Company Policy,  It does not matter what you agree at meetings , you should only agree the Drug and Alcohol Policy as integrated in the company’s employment policy

In conclusion.

The workplace drug testing industry in the UK is totally unregulated. In what other country would employees be subjected to tests where reliability is even questioned by industry insiders and the tests are not admissible in court! It’s disgraceful that workers with families and mortgages are forced to resign despite protesting their innocence because they don’t have the money or support to challenge these tests. You need only examine the procedures for collecting the samples, the testing and secrecy surrounding the test results. The entire procedure is unregulated.The drug testing companies have a vested interest in declaring positive results. How else can they encourage medium sized employers to pay £150,000 a year?

I was fortunate that I was close to retirement, and not looking for other employment, otherwise I would have resigned rather than risk being unemployable having been accused of drug abuse! I was disappointed that Unite did not provide the technical or legal expertise to challenge these tests, I had to employ a solicitor to organise alternative drug tests and appoint my own technical experts, costs which in the end exceeded £17000.  When my employer refused to pay my legal fees, I was then refused legal aid from the union because I was forced to employ a solicitor when the union refused to supply one, I successfully appealed this decision only to learn that the unions appointed solicitors would not seek to recover my £17000 legal costs, but pursue a Personal Injury claim which was worth less than the monies I had already spent!   Frankly the union’s performance in this event was abysmal.

If Unite the Union are not prepared to support their members with technical expertise when accused of taking drugs, then please do not sign into these agreements. Every time I challenged the legality or quality of these tests my employer stated they had been fully approved by Unite the Union my representatives!

If you believe that my case was an unfortunate error, or that I am unique, or that these drug testing companies have any integrity then be aware of this, I was accused of taking heroin in July 08, November 08 nearly 4 months later, the collection agency, the Medical Review Officer and my employer had time to carry out a full investigation. A representative from the Laboratory attended my disciplinary hearing and stated that the test was conclusive and the test procedures were correct and fault free!

Because of this I remained on suspension for a further six weeks, this was despite the fact that I was able to produce a Negative hair test, my Expert Witness completely discredited the Laboratory’s A sample analysis!!!!!   The B sample was later sent to xxx labs and reported as Negative. I have not received the actual laboratory test result or report? Or have I received any of the other documents requested by my solicitor, it’s all a cover up

I issued proceedings against my employer to recover my legal costs and compensation for the dreadful stress inflicted on me and my family. I am pleased to say they have now agreed to pay my legal fees and compensation. I am aware of other employees at my place of work accused of drug abuse that have protested their innocence and resigned to protect future employment.