The implementation of a drug and alcohol policy requires employee consent, however the extent of appropriate education for employees and the frequency of testing remains unclear.

This concept was recently dealt with in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. In Kidd v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2008]¹, a truck driver was reinstated after being dismissed for refusing to undergo a company issued drug and alcohol test.

The driver was a longstanding employee of Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (Linfox). Linfox has a drug and alcohol policy which provides authorisation to conduct random testing once a year. This policy provides for sanctions in the event of non compliance.

The driver refused to undergo testing and was consequently dismissed from his job.

Deputy President Reg Hamilton ruled in favour of the driver. He found it difficult to establish that Linfox had adequately trained or educated employees in regard to its drug and alcohol policy. The driver admitted knowledge of the policy but was not aware of specific details and had not been provided with a copy.

The Deputy President also emphasised that his finding was relevant solely to this case. He stated that he may have reached a different outcome had the company properly educated employees on the meaning and application of its policy.

This decision highlights the importance for employers to provide adequate communication and education in relation to internal drug and alcohol testing procedures. When implementing a testing program, all interested parties must be involved during the negotiating process to ensure a smooth implementation and ongoing operation.