CANNABIS. The cannabis constituent that produces the high is called Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-9-THC, widely known as THC.)

Delta-9-THC enters the bloodstream rapidly after smoking (in minutes) or more slowly when ingested orally (20 minutes to 1.5 hours). It is rapidly metabolised into inert molecules known as metabolites. These chemicals also have the word Tetrahydrocannabinol in them and are called THC, which can be quite confusing.

Delta-9-THC is detectable in the blood for a few hours, but none of this active chemical is found in the urine or stored in the fatty tissues such as the liver and brain.

What is frequently described as THC's lingering in the body fluids and organs are metabolites of Delta-9-THC, the inert substances that the body disposes of in the urine and excrement, in much the same way as it disposes with Vitamin A.

It is these that are detected in the body organs and urine, long after the effects of Delta-9-THC have worn off.

These metabolites can linger more than 90 days in some cases. For occasional users, an average of 13 days was recorded. Some people had metabolites detectable for just three days; others found the substances still in the urine after up to 29 days.

COCAINE is rapidly absorbed after smoking with the maximum plasma concentration occurring in 5 minutes.

After snorting or sniffing maximum concentrations are reached in 30 to 40 minutes. Cocaine is metabolised extensively with only 1% being excreted unchanged in the urine. The major metabolite -Benzoylecgonine - can be detected by an immunoassay test for approximately 48 hours. Again, a drug test cannot show the level of impairment at the time the test was taken.

AMPHETAMINES are metabolised and the drug will appear in the urine. Unchanged amphetamines have been detected in the urine up to 29 hours after a single dose of 5 mg. A positive amphetamine analysis indicates the use of amphetamine 24 to 48 hours previously. Again, it cannot show the level of impairment at the time the test was taken.

OPIATES including morphine, heroin, are rapidly absorbed after oral ingestion, with peak plasma levels occurring about 15 to 60 minutes after the drug has been taken. After injection it peaks in 15 minutes. The principal metabolite for detection is morphine-3, glucronide, which can be detected in the urine for around 48 hours. Again, it cannot show the level of impairment at the time the test was taken.

HEROIN has a similar pattern of metabolisation and excretion to morphine, and a typical test will show a positive result between two and four days after use. Again, it cannot show the level of impairment at the time the test was taken.

LYSERGIC ACID DIETHYLAMIDE (LSD) has its effect within minutes after use but can last for 12 hours. LSD is rapidly metabolised and only a very small portion of the dose is excreted unchanged in the urine. LSD itself, however, can be detected up to 30 hours after use and the metabolites can be detected for periods of up to 72 hours. Again, it cannot show the level of impairment at the time the test was taken.

A CAUTION against some terminology, doublespeak and innuendo often quoted by the authorities concerning drug and their effects (a lot of this misinformation particularly refers to cannabis use).

• Words such as: may, might, could, possible. These simply mean that no harm has been established. They are not scientific or material facts, and should be disregarded as hearsay.
• Comparative evaluations such as "Cannabis is more dangerous than tobacco," or "Cannabis has a similar effect on a person to alcohol." These are entirely subjective statements.
• Comparisons between cannabis and so-called "hard' drugs (another misnomer - there are only drugs, some more harmful than others). Ecstasy, cocaine, heroin and cannabis are all Schedule 1 drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Any direct comparison should be approached with extreme caution.

Clearly, in spite of the current ban there is no doubt that cannabis is being consumed on a substantial scale, and the illegal cannabis market has succeeded to a remarkable extent in maintaining the supply of a commodity for which there is a rapidly increasing demand. And it is an open-ended question whether or not this trend will continue!

At the same time enforcement has had a number of undesirable social consequences, the most important being that a considerable number of people of good character have found themselves at odds with the law who would not otherwise have done so. It is against this background that we examined the implications of 'random drug screening tests' for impairment:

Today many people caught with cannabis opt to take drug rehabilitation programs instead of prison time. This treatment option may reduce actual prison costs but does not substantially reduce surveillance, arrest and other pre-sentencing costs.

Those who wish to stop using cannabis only need willpower - medical research has shown that cannabis is not addictive. Indiscriminately forcing cannabis offenders into rehabilitation programs means the system wastes resources trying to "cure" people who have no need or real desire to be cured and probably resent the whole process. The NHS does not even have specialised treatments for cannabis users as they have said they see no need for them.

At the same time, overcrowding will mean centres will be forced to turn away cocaine or heroin addicts and alcoholics. Such a policy not only makes drug treatment less efficient; it may well increase crime committed by genuine drug addicts who cannot get treatment.

INCREASINGLY there have been calls to test drivers for drugs other than alcohol.

Consider the resources implication of this proposal. Over 500,000 drivers take the Breathalyzer every year. If we were to test for illicit drugs also, it could add at least another £50 million to the bill every year.

Do cannabis users have the same, higher or lower rates of road traffic accidents as the general public? In very high doses, cannabis probably does cause driving impairment. But there is no real evidence to support claims that cannabis consumption contributes significantly to road traffic accidents.

Strange as it may sound, much of the evidence suggests that cannabis use may actually make you a more careful driver!

The largest ever study examining road accidents with regard to drugs and alcohol found drivers with cannabis in their blood were no more at risk than those who were drug-free.

The findings of a pharmacology team from the University of Adelaide showed drivers who had smoked marijuana were marginally less likely to have an accident than those who were drug-free.

A study representative, Dr. Jason White, said the difference was not great enough to be statistically significant but could be explained by anecdotal evidence that marijuana smokers were more cautious and drove more slowly because of altered time perception.

Research has also suggested that drivers under the influence of cannabis retain insight into performance and tend to compensate for impairment, either by slowing down or by increasing effort.

The study has policy implications for those who argue drug detection should be a new focus for road safety. Dr. White said the study showed the importance of concentrating efforts on alcohol rather than other drugs.

• Should we be drug-testing drivers at such great expense?
• How effective would drug testing be in decreasing road accidents?

We know that the presence of certain drug-residue metabolites is no indication of when the substance was consumed, and no indication that the person was still under the its influence.

Surely it would make more sense to test driving skills themselves? All the necessary laws are already in place to enable prosecutions against erratic or dangerous drivers.

It would seem the only group that would stand to gain from the widespread introduction of drug testing would be the manufacturers of the drug testing kits and the companies contracted by the state to carry out the subsequent analysis.

THERE are approximately 3.5 million regular illicit drug users in the UK, of which approximately 94% are of working age. If 35% (1,225,000) of these are in employment and there are about 27,358,000 people in work, only 4.5 % of the actual total workforce is alleged to be using illicit drugs! Clearly, the government's figure of 35% is meant to mislead.

One suggested solution to drug abuse in the workplace is random drug testing the whole workforce. But can we afford it? Assuming tests cost 25 pounds and we test 5% of the workforce monthly, this would involve 1,367,000 tests every month, at an annual cost in excess of 34 million pounds.

In a healthy, productive society and workplace employers do have the right to expect their employees not to be drunk, asleep, or under the influence of illicit substances on the job.

But the bottom line should be work performance, health and safety, not whether someone has tested positive for recent use of a prohibited substance.

These chemical tests cannot prove impairment when other factors may be the cause for an employer being dissatisfied with an employees performance such as stress, family difficulties, underlying mental or physical health problems or incompetence, to name but a few.

Efficient supervision of the workforce is a much better way of ensuring that individuals are assessed on dexterity and competence in their duties. It would not take long to establish problem areas and address them by appropriate action, which could involve sacking after all aspects, have been fully investigated. Otherwise, employers may find themselves having to dismiss some of their best workers for no good reason.

Surprising as it may seem some of the data use to support workplace tests can be used to prove drug use has minimal derogatory effects on workers and could even have beneficial effects.

For example, in a recent study involving 132 workers at the Utah Power and Light Company and the Georgia Power Company, companies annually spent $215 per employee less on the drug users in health benefits, than on the control group!

Those who tested positive at Georgia Power had a higher promotion rate than the company average. Further, workers who tested positive at the Georgia Power Company for cannabis only - 35% of the total positives - took 30% less time off than the national average.

This suggests an employer's best course of action is to test only when they have to, then disregard the results and hire the positives!

If a student is impaired by drugs their studies and work will surely suffer, and the slipping standards will highlight any problems. These can be addressed and help can be offered to individuals to face and overcome them.

Competent supervision and assessment may not be a simplistic an option as drug tests, but they will prove a better investment in our children's future.

The bottom line is trust. Schools need to concentrate in creating an atmosphere of trust and cooperation, not one of suspicion and fear. Good student morale is important to the efficient running of a school, and drug testing demonstrably harms it.

THE case for urine screening tests, although well intentioned, is fundamentally flawed, as it has been shown that drug-screening tests are unsafe. But this will not stop some employers imposing drug-testing clauses in their employee's contract of employment.

How can you protect yourself against being unfairly selected for a drug screening and the possibility of being forced to go into a drug rehabilitation centre, asked to resign or being dismissed?

There is very little in the Employment Protection Act to give you protection against unfair treatment during the course of employment. The most relevant in reference to unfair dismissal as a result of a company applying it's drug or alcohol policy is Sections: 54, 55, and 57; An employee may claim re-instatement, re-engagement or compensation. An industrial tribunal hearing the claims will have to decide if the reasons for the dismissal were potentially fair and if so, whether the dismissal was fair or unfair, in all the circumstances of the case.

• Where an employee is faced with a drug screening test that he/she considers unreasonable and /or and invasion of privacy the employee may refuse to have the test.
• Where a sanction is one of dismissal, the employee could subsequently bring a claim for unfair dismissal before an industrial tribunal.

The employer's argument would be the reason for the dismissal was the employee's conduct (namely refusing to be drug tested) or alternately, some other substantial reason namely. The need to ensure a safe working place by the screening of employees who take controlled substances and/or their need to avoid any breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, section 8, and would be likely to establish a potentially fair reason.

The issue before the tribunal would then be whether or not such dismissal was fair in all the circumstances under section 57. The factors that a tribunal is likely to take into account would include the duties of the employee and their connection with safety at work and for the members of the public, the illegality of the employee's actions, the effect on the employer's reputation, whether the conduct was on or off duty, and if there was any contact with children.

Unfortunately for the purpose of advice there appears to be few reported decisions specifically on the issues raised by drug screening tests whether random or for cause. But in today's anti drug climate many tribunals would uphold the right of an employer's right to have a policy requiring random testing of employees in safety critical posts.

This would leave open a challenge by the employee whether his/her position was truly safety critical. If an employee could show arbitrary or unreasonable identification of their posts, a tribunal could well rule in their favour.

It would also leave open a challenge as to the procedure for carrying out drug screening tests. If the procedure unnecessarily infringes the employee's privacy and/or personal dignity this would be a strong argument before the industrial tribunal for saying that it was reasonable for the employee to protest and/or to refuse to undergo such a test.

As to the effectiveness of drug screening tests, if it was shown in any case that the employer was in possession of evidence suggesting the tests they were carrying out were not effective in measuring current impairment, and yet took disciplinary action against an employee on the strength of such a test, it would be strongly arguable that such disciplinary action was unfair.

More generally, as to whether or not dismissals for breaches of company rule will be held fair, the following decisions set out some principals generally followed by industrial tribunals and courts.

The fact that a company rule is strictly applied and all breaches of it are automatically result in dismissal does not make all consequential dismissals fair under Section 57(3) of the Employment Protection Act 1978. It still has to be decided whether dismissal is a reasonable response to a particular breach of rules. Each case has to be considered on its own merit.

When facing an unreasonable accusation that they have been taking illicit drugs and/or the unreasonable imposition of drug screening, the employee's position will normally be strong if, rather than resigning, they await the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings and see whether the employer decides to dismiss.

If an employee resigns they must first establish that the resignation constitutes 'dismissal' for the purpose of Section 55 (2c), and only if the employee surmounts this hurdle will the issue of reasonableness come before the industrial tribunal.

It is frequently stated that the small consumption of some drugs, for example, cannabis, will not affect performance when consumption has been approximately 3 hours subsequent to reporting for duty.

However, when it comes to the use of occasional small use illicit substances there would appear to be reason for concern, as has been shown the traces of cannabis use remains in the system long after any impairment of faculty has vanished.

While the case of Norfolk County Council v. Bernard indicates that possession of illegal substances will not necessarily lead to a finding of fair dismissal it is highly unlikely in today's anti-drug hysteria that many industrial tribunals would overturn a dismissal.

Tribunals would in probability, uphold an absolute policy of forbidding the consumption of illegal drugs in safety critical posts.

A further consideration would be the employee's use of illicit substances in itself is a crime punishable under criminal law.

As previously mentioned there is a wealth of case law from the United States, especially surrounding the fourth amendment. However, there is currently no equivalent to this in UK law. It would be up to an industrial tribunal considering the case whether or not to accept any relevant case law from the US in support of the of the employees or indeed the employers' case.

One can turn to the European Convention of Human Rights 8(1):

8(2), however, override these:

The difficulty in respect of a complaint as to the imposition of a drug-screening test is that one of the exceptions specifically relates to "public safety" where, for example, the employer in question is concerned with the provision of a service to the public. The policy clearly seeks to ensure safety of such a service.

An employer would be likely to succeed in justifying such a policy under Article 8 (2). It would however still be open to argument whether while the policy in general might be justified the particular steps complained of, for example random drug screening tests by way of testing body fluids or hair, was not necessary for public safety.

This would require detailed and careful argument and would depend on establishing that the public safety could be fully safeguarded by other means.

It would be for the employer to show that the measure under attack was both necessary a proportionate to the ends. That would require consideration as to what other steps could achieve the objective in a manner that did not infringe Article 8 (1). Many cases have been found to be a breach of Article 8(1) but justified under 8(2).

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)/Universal Declaration of Human Rights may also offer a means of redress. Article 17 provides:

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
• Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attack.

Article 12 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides similar terms.

No, the drug tests used by most companies are not. These tests can yield false positive results of at least 10 percent, and possibly as much as 30 percent of the time. At a recent conference 120 forensic scientists were asked, "Is there anyone who would submit urine for drug testing if his career, reputation, freedom or livelihood depended on it?" Not one single hand was raised.

Yes, but these are very expensive and infrequently used. Moreover, even these tests can yield inaccurate results due to laboratory error. A survey by the National Institute of Drugs Abuse (NIA), a US government agency, found that 20 percent of the laboratories surveyed mistakenly reported the presence of illegal drugs in drug-free urine samples. Unreliability also stems from the tendency of drug screens to confuse similar chemical compounds.

There are no clear estimates about the economical costs to industry resulting from drug use by employees. Proponents of testing claim the costs are high, but they are hard pressed to translate that claim into real figures. In any event, employers have better ways to maintain high productivity and good morale, as well as to identify and help employees if they have a problem. Competent supervision, voluntary rehabilitation programs and professional counseling may not be as simple as a drug test, but they are a better investment.

Yes. Many federal courts and US states have ruled that testing programs in public workplaces on schools are unconstitutional if they are not base on individualized suspicion. Courts have struck down programs that randomly tested police officers, fire fighters, teachers, and civilian army personnel, prison guards and the employees of many federal agencies.

One federal judge in Washington had this to say about drug testing programs for government employees: "This case presents for judicial consideration a wholesale deprivation of the most fundamental privacy rights of thousands upon thousands of law-abiding citizens..."

In 1989, the US Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of drug testing government employees not actually suspected of drug use. In two cases involving US Customs guards and railroad workers. The majority of the court held that urine tests are searches, but that these particular employees could be tested without being suspected drug users on the grounds that their fourth Amendment right to privacy was outweighed by the government's interest in maintaining a drug-free workplace.

Obviously, people who are responsible for others' lives should be held to a high standard of job performance. But testing for drugs will not help employers do that because drug testing does not detect impairment.

If employers in transportation or other industries are really concerned about public safety, they should abandon imperfect drug testing and test performances instead which do not invade privacy, and can improve safety far better than indiscriminate drug tests can.

Such tests may be the easiest way to identify drug users, including passive users. But is by far the most objectionable it infringes on the very principle and tradition that the general searching of innocent people to find the minority who might be guilty of an offence is unfair. The long-standing principle of fairness should apply to drug testing. 'There must be good reason to suspect a particular person before subjecting him or her to an intrusive body search'.

Surely if traces of drugs are found in a person's body fluids it must follow they are under the influence of that drug?

No. Drug tests cannot tell when or if a drug has been used. They can only detect the "metabolites," or the leftover traces of a previously ingested substance. For example, whether a person smoked cannabis on a Saturday night has nothing to do with his fitness to work the following Monday, long after cannabis has ceased to have any effect. In this case, what a person did on Saturday has nothing to do with his fitness to work Monday. At the same time, a person can snort cocaine on the way to work and test negative that same morning. That is because the cocaine has not had time to metabolise and will therefore not show up in a person's urine.

The US courts have also considered the legality of drug testing school students. An Arkansas judge ruled that students could not be subject to mandatory urinalysis to prove or disprove the offence of using cannabis at school.

The court noted that the drugs' test could not establish when cannabis had been consumed, and provided "no information at all as to the effects of cannabis on the user...whether any given student had used cannabis while at school...or was under the influence while at school."

The court ruled that using urine test to determine violation of school rules was "irrational, arbitrary and capricious."

As previously stated a positive test for drugs in the body fluids is not indicative of impairment. If tests were used, since it is estimated that 10-12 percent of all drivers use illicit drugs, at any given time there will be thousands falling foul of these tests as with the drink and drive tests.

However, any increased detection will have resource implications. Over half million drivers are stopped each year and pass the Breathalyzer. If these were all to be tested for drugs also, the extra cost could be as much as 50 million pounds each year, assuming an average cost of 100 poundsper test. Each case taken forward would necessitate a confirmation test and other extra costs.

More importantly, it would bring into focus the legal difficulties of defining what constitutes being unfit to work or drive through drugs!

PEOPLE differ in what they perceive as being the most needy and urgent problems to solve. As far as the CLCIA is concerned, the most pressing problem is the government's attitude to the use and trade of a natural herb, cannabis.

Despite the fact that every argument against rescheduling cannabis so far presented has been shown to be mistaken, the main political parties appear to be doing nothing towards solving the social problems caused by cannabis prohibition, insisting the case for change has not been made out.

Conservatives claim any relaxation in the drug laws would be a disaster, leading to more addicts and children put at risk. Seemingly they put more faith in a policeman's observations and opinions than in scientific research.

Liberal Democrat: The Liberal Democrats project a liberal attitude, with individual MP's stating various views. As a party, however, they are simply calling for another royal commission.

Yet the current Labour Government has proclaimed the irrelevance of any judgment not to its liking arrived at by a royal commission, asserting that even if such a commission recommended rescheduling; it would take no notice.

The report recommended lighter penalties for possession. James Callaghan, the Prime Minister, dismissed the findings, and increased penalties. Since then the overall drug problem has escalated out of control.

Green: The Green Party, at a glance, seems to have a radical forward-thinking policy. It advocates decriminalising the possession of all drugs held for personal use, legalising cannabis grown at home for personal use and de-penalising small-scale supply.

On close examination a huge flaw appears in this policy: there would be no legal supply. What is being proposed is that illegal profiteers - drug dealers - should supply a legalised commodity!

"1992 Transport Act" (Public transport section).

"Marijuana Intoxication by Passive Inhalation" 1987 - American Journal of Psychiatry.

"Texaco UK Drug Policy" & "British Rail and London Transport" Contracts of Employment.

"Wootton Report (UK ) 1968-70 Cannabis" - Report By the Advisory Committee On Drug Dependence.

"Drink Drugs and Work Don't Mix" Pub ISDD. ISBN 0 948830 61 1

"Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts": A Review of the Scientific Evidence" Zimmer, Lynn, and Morgan John P. ISBN: 0-9641568-4-9

"Hemp - Lifeline to the Future" Conrad, Chris: 1993. ISBN: 0-9639754-0-4.

"The Report: Cannabis: The Facts, human Rights and The Law" 'd'Oudney, Ken, & Joanna. Scorpio Recording Company Ltd., London. ISBN 0-9524421-9-1

"Drug Metabolism and Disposition" 1973 - L. Lember

"Marijuana the Forbidden Medicine" Grinspoon, Lester & James Bakalar 1993, ISBN: 0-300-054351

"The Emperor Wears No Clothes And The Marijuana Conspiracy, HEMP" Jack Herer,

"Shafer Commission" (US Federal Government, 1973)

"Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain." (Annual Report 1998/99 & National Plan 1999/2000) Keith Hellawell. Cabinet Office

"Universal Declaration of Human Rights," December 10 1948.

"Technical Problems With Urine Testing For Marijuana and Other Drugs" 1990 - National Union for the Reform of the Marijuana Laws (NORML) USA

"Cannabis options for control" - Ed. Frank Logan ISBN 0 905898 05 2

"Drug and Alcohol Testing in employment - Advice. Tess Gill 1994. National Council for Civil Liberties.

"Transforme" 1 Roselake House, Hudds Vale Road, St. George, Bristol. BS5 7HY

"Drugs, Alcohol and mental health" Alan and Vicky Cornwall. ISBN 0 521 3131 5

"Psychopharmacology: The Fourth Generation" - ed. Floyd Bloom and David Kupfer, 1995

"Employee Drug Screening" 1986 - Walsh and Hawks, National Institute on Drug Abuse.

"Drugs - Just Say Know" - A Green Briefing. Green Party Drugs Group. shane@gn.apc.org

"American Civil Rights Union". "UK Parliamentary office of science and technology."

YOUR employer is reviewing its policy on the use of drugs with particular reference to impairment, its statutory duty to maintain your health and safety whilst at work and to conform to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

The company finds it necessary to make the following proposals to insure it conforms to the laws below governing the use of illicit substances and alcohol in the workplace.

Section 2 Prohibiting the use of controlled drugs.

Section 5 Restricting the possession of controlled drugs.

Section 8 Punishing occupiers of premises permitting certain activities to take place there.

Section 10 Providing the power to make regulation for preventing the misuse of controlled drugs.

Under this act all employees have a duty not to turn up for work or be at work unfit and unable to carry out their duties in safe and competent manner as a result of using illicit substances or consuming alcohol above the prescribed limits.

It is the company's duty to take reasonable care for your safety and provide a safe working environment.

It is therefore clear that the company must take all appropriate steps to insure that the standard of work of all its employees and to insure their performance and behavior is not adversely affected by substance abuse. Particular attention is given to employees in 'safety sensitive positions' who might directly affect the safety of fellow employees or members of the public they come in contact with when carrying out their duties.

THE abuse of any substance by any employee on company business shall in the first place be primarily considered a health problem and eligible for sick leave.

However, substance abuse can also be a disciplinary problem. The company therefore has taken a balanced look at the issues at hand with particular reference to the need to insure that we have a safe and healthy drug-free workplace.

The company proposes to implement a strict policy of control by:

• Not employing anyone who is a registered drug addict.
• Operating a pre-employment drug-screening test.
• Random drug testing of all employees in safety and security sensitive positions. (Safety and security areas are to be agreed).
• Any employee who is offered or applies for promotion or transfer will be subject to a drug-screening test.
• Mandatory screening 'for cause or post cause' i.e. where illicit drug use may have been a contributory factors in an accident.
• Any employee convicted in court of an illicit substance offence may be subject to a disciplinary hearing as to their suitability for continued employment by the company.
• The company will reserves the right to search an employee if there are reasonable grounds to suggest the worker be in possession of an illegal substance.
• Any proven case of possession or supply of illicit substance against an employee whilst at work will be reported to the authorities.

Present employees who feel they may have a problem or develop one while in the employ of the company may voluntarily refer themselves. The company after assessment will if needed, offer medical assistance and meet all reasonable treatment and rehabilitation costs.

The company will reserve the right to impose mandatory referrals for treatment where there is a suspected breach of the prohibition laws, or if an employee's behaviour or work performance appears to be impaired by illicit substances.

Mandatory referrals will not normally be considered a gross misconduct and could with the offender's agreement result in the company offering to pay for treatment.

When an employee has been made subject to a referral for treatment they will only be allowed to continue working under advice of the company doctor, otherwise they will be placed on sick leave. On satisfactory completion of a rehabilitation program, the employee will be expected to agree to a five-year monitoring period, during which the employee will be expected to attain a satisfactory level of performance, submit to regular check-ups by the company doctor, and submit to random drug screening tests.

Any positive drug test results, breaches of the conditions during the monitoring period, failure to submit to a lawfully requested drug screening test, or refusal to give consent for the results of any medical examinations, assessments or evaluations of tests being disclosed to the company, shall in normal circumstances be treated as gross misconduct that may result in summary dismissal.

Public Information Document