When you see NZQA qualifications you automatically think yes, everyone is trained to be competent and at the same standard.

This is not the case, when the majority in the industry has no experience or little knowledge this then sets the standard and then becomes the industry norm, with pricing dictating quality and competency.

The drug testing industry is still very young in New Zealand and over the last 10 years we have seen a growth in company’s doing their own testing and other companies starting up, competition is always good but not all are equal. When health and safety is at risk compromise cannot be substituted for cost, with the donors now knowing more in regards to their rights than most of the technicians doing the testing, its time to lift the bar.

This has created a new industry in training and product sales and often the line between these are blurred with the training designed as a sales pitch on selling their own product, losing focus on best practice, and the standards being overlooked or misinformation given, many individuals after completing the course thinking that they have achieved these qualifications and that they will be now testing to the AS/NZ 4308:2008 standard.

When looking at achieving NZQA qualifications in drug testing or if you have them, ask the trainer or provider some questions.

What qualifications do they have or what makes them an expert in this field?

Being on the standards board or committee does not necessarily make you an expert, the committee is made up of scientist’s (great for cut of levels or lab testing), union delegates or other unrelated industry’s and a lot of end providers (sellers of product or training), hardly any, if any, have experience with onsite collection or the process around this or understanding of the standards and what the desired outcome of the course should be. This is also evident when looking at policy’s developed by these individuals, who once again, are out of their expertise and you should contact the expert in these fields (employment lawyers, EMA)

Does the course cover all of the 4308 standards?

The NZQA qualifications are to insure that the collection and screening are done in accordance with the 4308 standards at an evidential level , the standard is the reason these qualifications exist, this means that controls need to be covered, not on batches but daily controls every time testing is conducted, also after every 25 tests completed that day with other circumstances also around this, an external proficiency program needs to be done and most important IANZ (International Accreditation of New Zealand) in NZ and NATA (National Association of Testing Authorities) in Australia, accreditation is essential not a “if you want to”, these are normally left out of a lot of courses due to the lack of knowledge, insufficient time allowed, or to push the sale of product.

Once all of this is done, then you are testing to the standard, something most trainers forget to inform you of.

What are the risks of not testing to the standard?

If you are not testing to the standard the donor may have a valid reason to refuse the test, I would.

If it is a positive test and it goes to disciplinary matters, and you are not testing to the standard, the test will not be recognised and the integrity of the test will be questioned, this in itself can be very costly. Refer to case law.

The lack of quality control, the individuals selling these products under the standard have no duty to insure their devices are working when they are delivered, this means that the devices are subject to uncontrolled temperatures, and with no requirement for any quality control upon arrival or departure of the suppliers, this means that companies or individuals may be using faulty devices without any knowledge, and not having any effect in identifying risks within the workplace, this could have dire consequences.

 How long should this course take ?

Each unit has an allocated time attached to it, this has some flexibility with cross over units and pre course material and prior knowledge.

Unit numbers 25511 equals 4 units at level 4- each unit equates to 10 hrs

25458 equals 2 units at level 3

But all of the 4308 standards regarding testing should be covered and competent in testing, having someone show you how to use the device does not make you competent.

Do I need a Refresher ?

In regards to the NZQA qualifications in themselves the answer is no, as part of IANZ and maintaining IANZ an annual competency test is a requirement, so if you are looking at refreshers insure that the course has been IANZ approved for best practice.

What can I do ?

When it is cheaper and less time consuming to go to another provider than delivering in house training, you have to question the practices being taught, with health and safety at the forefront of everybody’s mind it is important that Drug and Alcohol testing does not become a ticking the box exercise.  Even the NZQA/Skills are struggling to police the standards, so insure your training is by a reputable ITO and the trainer is qualified on the subject, do not pick bits out of the standard and ignore other parts. When a death occurs it is too late.

Before starting any Drug test the donor must give informed consent.

We are getting more and more challenges around drug testing, this is due to miss guidance by individuals claiming to be experts when the old saying “a little knowledge is dangerous” should really be taken into consideration.

The days of HR and Health and safety consultants down loading templates or copying another company’s policy are gone, short term savings have now the potential to become very costly, you know you are in dangerous territory when even some employment lawyers can’t seem to get this correct.

As one of the pioneers in onsite drug testing there has been a lot of changes since we started, two of the major influences have been the 2004 Air New Zealand case law and the introduction of the AS/NZ 4308:2008 standards, both have had a major impact in regards to the policy and testing, this has been done to insure that the employee has a clear understanding of requirements and outcomes, and the employer has a duty and obligation to all employees that it is a fair, reasonable and reliable process and that the Health and Safety in Employment Act is the purpose of testing. This means that the process has to withstand evidential scrutiny whilst taking into account, the Bill of Rights Act, Privacy Act, Employment Relations Act, Human Rights Act, and still insuring this is done to the standards.

Any Company that is conducting on-site testing who is not testing to the standard should inform the donor that this is not in accordance to the standard. The Donor can then make a informed decision based on the information provided.

Informed Consent Law and Legal Definition. Informed consent is generally agreement to do something or to allow something to happen only after all the relevant facts are disclosed

One of the big misconceptions is IANZ- The standard stipulates that the company must be accredited. Accreditation can only be obtained after IANZ has assessed the company against international standards including NZS/ISO 15189:2012- registered under the testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972 as an Accredited Laboratory – this takes into account – Compliance with ISO management systems, Technical validity of methods, Competence and experience of staff, Validity and suitability of results and integrity and tractability of equipment and materials, this is what will give testing and the procedures the ability to withstand scrutiny in the employment court.

This also gives clear direction on what is acceptable for donor identification, when controls need to be done and best practice always lifting the bar by recommendations and insuring that these have been implemented, something that even those involved with the standards seem to struggle with or try and over complicate. . 

This is also the biggest misconception with even experts not getting this correct- if your policy states that you are testing to the AS/NZ 4308:2008 standards as it should, and the company who is performing the testing is not accredited then you are not testing in accordance with the company policy,

With the donors now becoming more aware of what the legal requirements are for testing we are seeing more and more challenges and we will start seeing more employers in court and on the wrong end of the judgement.

The first thing the lawyer will look at is the policy, this has to be followed to the letter and where nearly all cases are lost, they will then look to insure that it is fair and reasonable, with even wording such as will and may taken into consideration.

We have seen hundreds of policy’s over the years, from company’s thinking a paragraph in an IEA will cover them, to a comprehensive book, down to procedure of removing footwear, some good ones and some that we have had to refuse to go through with testing.

The most common questions that seem to be always discussed are, with or without pay, deduct pay or holiday once results come in and rehabilitation being the bone of contempt for most employers.

A couple of other interesting ones we have had recently are :

Employees refusing to do Client requirement (part of on-site requirement for some principle companies), this has in the past been put under Pre-Employment that can be confusing in itself, but donors are now stating that their company does not allow for this so not part of their contract with their employer. 

Not refusing the test but not willing to sign anything.

These are just a few.

We have been working closely over the last 18 mnths with employment lawyers including some who have been involved in recent case laws and EMA on how we can insure we can close these loop holes, aligning the policy with procedures, standards and law. 

For more information on who the experts are we can point you in the right direction.