1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
kink and drugs
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
k duty to allow testing is )erfectly permissible, and you would ieed to get this in as a term of the :ontract against the background of a )olicy clearly explained and publicised.
However, you need to decide the ;tandard first. On alcohol, for instance, vill the standard be zero tolerance? This itandard is allowed by the law, but there vill need to be an area of discretion or mcertainty when a minute or tiny trace s found, and a procedure (such as ncreased testing and warning) might be he answer.
It goes without saying that testing nocedures must be professional and ;crupulous.
What if the employee refuses? To force tn invasion of his person would be an Issault, and no doctor would do this. qeither an employer nor the police can Orce a test in the face of a refusal, but 'on can use the police's solution to this )roblem; a refusal without reasonable .xcuse will have the same effect as a )ositive result—potential dismissal.
As for drugs, you can apply the same ort of principle—but take professional .dvice first.
There are many organisations who lave the skill and experience to be able to perform professional testing. Not only hat, but they can give you advice as to he implication of the result.