Sponsored by
Baxi staff in drug probe
Up to 19 workers have been suspended from a Lancashire firm after failing random drug tests.
The employees, believed to be boiler assembly workers at the Baxi site in Bamber Bridge, near Preston, were called in for drug testing around two weeks ago. It is understood the company, which employs around 120 people, called in an outside firm to conduct the tests.
One employee said the move had provoked fury among workers, who were allegedly asked to empty their pockets before the tests were administered.
An investigation is now underway and the suspended employees could face disiplinary action.
One employee, who asked not to be named, speaking outside the Baxi site in Club Street, said: “I think there were 19 of them altogether. They took everyone in, got an outside company to do whatever and escorted people off the premises if they failed.
“I’m not sure whether they were targeting people who were suspected. They were telling people to empty their pockets as they were coming in apparently.
“People were kicking off saying they shouldn’t be allowed to do it, but they are a law unto themselves.”
It is not clear what drugs the workers tested positive for, but cannabis is believed to be among them.
Chris Tyrer, manufacturing director at Baxi Group in Bamber Bridge, refused to confirm exact details of the suspensions.
He said: “At Baxi Group we have a strict policy in place regarding the use of drugs and alcohol, and take breaches of these rules very seriously. Occasionally, our screening process exposes violations of this policy, and, as in this case, we will carry out a detailed investigation and take appropriate disciplinary action.”
Terry Burns, of Unite, which represents around 80% of employees at the site, said: “If anyone starts being put into a disciplinary process, I would expect them to contact me.”
A spokesman for Lancashire police said they received a call from Baxi bosses at 10.27am on July 15, “about suspected drug taking among workers”.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Preston
Saturday 04 February 2012
Today
Light snow
Temperature: 2 C to 3 C
Wind Speed: 22 mph
Wind direction: South east
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: 3 C to 7 C
Wind Speed: 16 mph
Wind direction: West
Comments
There are 27 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
sunshine band
Monday, August 16, 2010 at 10:03 AMIf anyone can show me where the law says the using drugs is illicit I will retract my comment. Only the use of opium is a statutory offence. Some people have failed to grasp the distinction between being unfit to work through drink or drugs and having the metabolites or other indicators present in their system which indicate previous drug use which (in the case of hair samples ight be years ago), or in the case of urine samples, be up to 2 months ago depending on the test. What is clear is that what is being tested for is not active levels of drugs, in fact I am told that the cannabis urine test only tests for the inactive component. Sweat tests are even less useful. Further, it is hard to evaluate if even active levels of drugs necessarily lead to impairment - same with driving, it's a very very subjective and inexact approach (inconvenient as that might be). Our abilities to operate machinery might, or might not be prejudiced by any drug or combination of drugs at varying levels, as well as (with or without drugs) concentration and distraction, tiredness, training, adequate safety measures, mood and depresion, prescription medications, shift-working patterns and time on the job, experience etc etc.
balders
Sunday, August 15, 2010 at 11:19 PMRe the post below......Your wrong.
kezzer
Saturday, August 14, 2010 at 12:49 AMLesson here..dont do drugs....no sympathy whatsoever...Baxi are being competant and protecting other workers....Sunshine.drug use IS "illicit"..keep taking the pills pal !! Your personal life is affecting your working life...shut your stupid mouth man !! NOT competant to work...your a complete drug taking idiot...you cant defend these losers...the country is full of them !! No case to answer for BAXI...if jobs needed to go...the bag heads didnt see what was coming...fools !
John.T
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 10:57 PMSurely a company as a duty of care to all its employees. If it suspects drug or alcohol use sage (even if prescribed) it has a duty to investigate so its other employees are not put at risk. However it also as a duty to apply a fair process to the results it finds. I would strongly suspect it would be in breach of employment law if it was found not to give individuals the benefit of care and counselling, before it took disciplinary action. It would have been much better to have consulted with employee representatives before it started this action.
sunshine band
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 10:01 PMSo TJ, I did miss your last post before my last one but my comment was that you were using the expression 'illicit use' of drugs and I was saying that using drugs is not in itself an illicit activity, even controlled ones save for the use of opium. I cannot countenance employment law law upholding that for these purposes such as flying a passenger aircraft it is necessary to screen any pilot for anything in terms of their bodily inegrity and privacy, unless, there is just cause by merit of some perceived incapacity that gives rise to a genuine concern. It would in any event be discriminatory to apply tests that identify controlled drugs in this climate, given that the criminal law already arbitrarily discriminates against users of different drugs through the criminal jurisdiction. This explains my venom at people like these set yourself up as a franchised drug tester as the latest money spinner. I have no objection to the neutral application of this technology, nor to the business of profiteering from the war on some people who use some drugs - I do however take objection to tests which confirm the presence of such drugs as a blunt test in a general useage capacity, as this really extends the intrusion. I guess these businesses are entirely suited to ex-coppers and people that like exercising their muscle, perhaps they will soon all be armed with Tasers to ensure compliance.
sunshine band
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 09:59 PMSo TJ, I did miss your last post before my last one but my comment was that you were using the expression 'illicit use' of drugs and I was saying that using drugs is not in itself an illicit activity, even controlled ones save for the use of opium. I cannot countenance employment law law upholding that for these purposes such as flying a passenger aircraft it is necessary to screen any pilot for anything in terms of their bodily inegrity and privacy, unless, there is just cause by merit of some perceived incapacity that gives rise to a genuine concern. It would in any event be discriminatory to apply tests that identify controlled drugs in this climate, given that the criminal law already arbitrarily discriminates against users of different drugs through the criminal jurisdiction. This explains my venom at people like these set yourself up as a franchised drug tester as the latest money spinner. I have no objection to the neutral application of this technology, nor to the business of profiteering from the war on some people who use some drugs - I do however take objection to tests which confirm the presence of such drugs as a blunt test in a general useage capacity, as this really extends the intrusion. I guess these businesses are entirely suited to ex-coppers and people that like exercising their muscle, perhaps they will soon all be armed with Tasers to ensure compliance.
sunshine band
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 09:48 PMSo TJ, I did miss your last post before my last one but my comment was that you were using the expression 'illicit use' of drugs and I was saying that using drugs is not in itself an illicit activity, even controlled ones save for the use of opium. I cannot countenance employment law law upholding that for these purposes such as flying a passenger aircraft it is necessary to screen any pilot for anything in terms of their bodily inegrity and privacy, unless, there is just cause by merit of some perceived incapacity that gives rise to a genuine concern. It would in any event be discriminatory to apply tests that identify controlled drugs in this climate, given that the criminal law already arbitrarily discriminates against users of different drugs through the criminal jurisdiction. This explains my venom at people like these set yourself up as a franchised drug tester as the latest money spinner. I have no objection to the neutral application of this technology, nor to the business of profiteering from the war on some people who use some drugs - I do however take objection to tests which confirm the presence of such drugs as a blunt test in a general useage capacity, as this really extends the intrusion. I guess these businesses are entirely suited to ex-coppers and people that like exercising their muscle, perhaps they will soon all be armed with Tasers to ensure compliance.
sunshine band
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 08:56 PMThey are not testing for 'incapacity' though are they? That is the crux of the matter, merely using drugs (which includes prescription drugs, drinking and controlled drugs) means nothing re competence to work, yet this is the case they try to make. To stick the knife in some drug users are then snitched on to try and get their lives ruined by criminal proceedings, and perhaps this will then be cited as justification for ditching them without proper compensation redundancy. Actually TJ might note that the use of drugs is not an 'illicit' activity as he says, Parliament decided that only the use of one particular drug ought to be illicit, and that drug is opium. The rest of the controlled drugs are effectively prohibited through the criminilising of property rights with respect to them. The drug testing thing is a nasty tool which takes that distinction between having the freedom to have soverignty over one's internal chemistry and not being able to exercise overt property rights in controlled drugs and drives a coach and horses through it. I think it's acceptable to measure the competence of workers in many industries and if they fall short, to inisist on various tests being done. What is entirely unacceptable in my view is to police their personal lives through this insidious way on a random basis.
ratus ratur6
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 08:42 PMperhaps the workers affected should get up close and personal with the company directors. A visit to Companies House website and a few quid later bingo names and adresses and off you go for a cosy shat possible tea amd muffins.
TJ
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 08:11 PMI think Sunshine band couldn't have read my comment because heshe seems to be saying exactly what I was saying. I can't find anything to disagree with you. You need to demonstrate incapcity and evidence of incapcity to justify drugs tests in most cases. If you are incapable due to drugs it is Gross Misconduct. That is not my personal opinion - I agree people shopuld be able to do what they want with thier own bodies as long as they don't endanger anyone else - but Employment law. I can't help that. It does also depend on the job. I wouldn't anyone driving a bus who had any drugs or alcholo in them. So random tests would be justified. We don't know whast jobs these people are doing - so we can't comment on this as a justification. howvwer, if they are susing machinery the company will have a duty of care to prevent them using this machinery if they feel they are incapable.
TJ
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 08:11 PMI think Sunshine band couldn't have read my comment because heshe seems to be saying exactly what I was saying. I can't find anything to disagree with you. You need to demonstrate incapcity and evidence of incapcity to justify drugs tests in most cases. If you are incapable due to drugs it is Gross Misconduct. That is not my personal opinion - I agree people shopuld be able to do what they want with thier own bodies as long as they don't endanger anyone else - but Employment law. I can't help that. It does also depend on the job. I wouldn't anyone driving a bus who had any drugs or alcholo in them. So random tests would be justified. We don't know whast jobs these people are doing - so we can't comment on this as a justification. howvwer, if they are susing machinery the company will have a duty of care to prevent them using this machinery if they feel they are incapable.
sunshine band
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 07:57 PMThey are not testing for 'incapacity' though are they? That is the crux of the matter, merely using drugs (which includes prescription drugs, drinking and controlled drugs) means nothing re competence to work, yet this is the case they try to make. To stick the knife in some drug users are then snitched on to try and get their lives ruined by criminal proceedings, and perhaps this will then be cited as justification for ditching them without proper compensation redundancy. Actually TJ might note that the use of drugs is not an 'illicit' activity as he says, Parliament decided that only the use of one particular drug ought to be illicit, and that drug is opium. The rest of the controlled drugs are effectively prohibited through the criminilising of property rights with respect to them. The drug testing thing is a nasty tool which takes that distinction between having the freedom to have soverignty over one's internal chemistry and not being able to exercise overt property rights in controlled drugs and drives a coach and horses through it. I think it's acceptable to measure the competence of workers in many industries and if they fall short, to inisist on various tests being done. What is entirely unacceptable in my view is to police their personal lives through this insidious way on a random basis.
sunshine band
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 07:44 PMThey are not testing for 'incapacity' though are they? That is the crux of the matter, merely using drugs (which includes prescription drugs, drinking and controlled drugs) means nothing re competence to work, yet this is the case they try to make. To stick the knife in some drug users are then snitched on to try and get their lives ruined by criminal proceedings, and perhaps this will then be cited as justification for ditching them without proper compensation redundancy. Actually TJ might note that the use of drugs is not an 'illicit' activity as he says, Parliament decided that only the use of one particular drug ought to be illicit, and that drug is opium. The rest of the controlled drugs are effectively prohibited through the criminilising of property rights with respect to them. The drug testing thing is a nasty tool which takes that distinction between having the freedom to have soverignty over one's internal chemistry and not being able to exercise overt property rights in controlled drugs and drives a coach and horses through it. I think it's acceptable to measure the competence of workers in many industries and if they fall short, to inisist on various tests being done. What is entirely unacceptable in my view is to police their personal lives through this insidious way on a random basis.
TJ
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 07:31 PMIncapacity through the illicit use of drugs is Gross Misconduct. Their is no defence. It’s the same if someone is incapable though alcohol. The key word is “incapacity.” The management will have to prove this – and if they were just random tests with no other supporting evidence as to incapacity- then I the workers might not have a case to answer. However, a lot would also depend what job the workers did – use of machinery for example. It would also depend if they have been warned in advance that random tests would be carried or that these tests are a regularly occurrence, and the staff advised of the consequences of a negative result. The testing of people at work or the searching of people property – as a one off, rather than a standard procedure, particularly if it is applied discriminatory to some workers and not others - without any other grounds for suspicion is a major attack on someone’s Civil; Liberties. Could it be that Baxi just want to avoid having to pay redundancy payments???
leylandlilywhite
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 07:29 PMThere is without doubt a health and safety aspect to drug taking at work and surely it is not acceptable.---For the company to carry out these tests would suggest that they were aware that certain members of staff had a drug problem.-----But i would think that it would be very difficult to sack an employee on these grounds as i think Baxi would have to offer support, rehabilitation etc ,etc and would have to follow certain procedures with regard to empolyment law.
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.