Irish firms refuse to fund drink and drug tests

Plans to introduce random onsite drink and drugs tests for construction workers in the Republic of Ireland have run into trouble as parliament gets set to approve the necessary legislation.

Two key questions now threaten the new safety initiative: who will be responsible for operating the new tests? And who will foot the bill for the cost involved?

The Irish Construction Industry Federation (CIF) said member firms are not prepared to accept responsibility for implementing it or for picking up the tab. “Employers cannot be expected to carry out random tests on their staff to establish if they have excessive drugs or alcohol in their system,” warned CIF safety executive Dermot Carey.

“It is the employee who brings this hazard to the workplace and, if there is suspicion, the onus should be on the employee to provide proof of fitness to work. But since the government has decided to introduce these tests, it must now provide the Health and Safety Authority with the resources required to enforce the law.”

Under the legislation, due to be passed in the coming parliamentary session, workers failing the random tests would face on-the-spot fines of up to £600, as well as possible dismissal. The measure is one of a series intended to cut the high death and injury toll in the industry, with the penalty for employers found guilty of serious safety breaches to be increased to a fine of £1.8m and/or two years’ imprisonment.

The CIF has asked for talks with government officials on how the testing regime will work and how it will be staffed and funded. “We want to know how frequent the tests will be and how they will be triggered,” said a spokesman. “If all sites are to be covered, then it will involve very considerable cost. Over the past two years, the industry has spent around £90m on safety training for all workers, so we’re not in a position to provide any extra funding.”

The CIF is also concerned about a provision in the legislation to name and shame firms given official warnings, or issued with temporary site closure notices, because of safety breaches. It fears that the impact of such adverse publicity could affect companies’ insurance cover and jeopardise their survival.

“Companies need to be assisted and encouraged to have proper safety procedures in place,” Carey said. “Imposing punishment so severe that it drives them out of business benefits no one.”