The use of alcohol and other drugs can have enormous impacts on oil and gas operations, including affecting relationships, safety, productivity, and business reputation, and requires ongoing effort towards testing, training, and education.
This makes it imperative for employers to develop an effective drug and alcohol policy to reinforce a positive workplace culture.
The Australian resources industry overall has substantially higher rates of alcohol use than the national average, and also more impactful consequences arising from potential safety incidents related to alcohol or drug use.
The industry’s inherent occupational health and safety risks lead to the work being demanding and stressful, which may contribute to higher levels of alcohol and drug use, as well as mental health problems, including high rates of male suicide.
Research has also indicated that the industry’s workplace culture and environment may be a contributor to the prevalence of substance use.
Stressors that can contribute to drug and alcohol use include high-risk work, a culture that tolerates or encourages alcohol or drug use, inadequate training or support, and a lack of job security.
Other stressors relevant to the resources industry include a lack of opportunity to participate in decision making; bullying, harassment or victimisation in the workplace; peer pressure; dirty and noisy work environments; and poor job design, including boring or extremely demanding work.
The myriad of factors that contribute to the high levels of substance use highlight the need for appropriate evidence-based workplace policies and programs.
These should include prevention and intervention programs that address the needs of young workers, as well as effective strategies that account for the higher drug-related risks facing the sector.
Research conducted by the Australian Drug Foundation identified work stress as one of the biggest influences on alcohol and other drug use, as well as long and irregular hours and boredom.
Phillip Collins, Head of Workplace Services at the Australian Drug Foundation, explained that many of the lifestyle factors of workers in the resources industry raised immediate red flags, with a multi-pronged approach required to tackle drug and alcohol abuse.
Collins said: “Workers in this industry are mostly male, they are isolated, working irregularly, long hours and often don’t have easy access to local health care and interventions they need to work through their problems.
“We can’t just rely on drug testing; there needs to be a multitude of approaches all working together to ensure the health and wellbeing of employees.
“The first approach could be a formal workplace policy [which] should provide an outline of the organisation’s position and provide a set of guidelines and strategies around dealing with all aspects of alcohol and drug-related issues within the workplace.”
He also highlighted education and training as key elements to any successful workplace strategy.
Operators face several challenges in tackling substance abuse across the industry, such as the increased societal use of drugs; the use of masking agents; gaining employee acceptance of testing methods; and ensuring fair, proportionate and consistent management responses.
Other challenges include maintaining awareness with a sometimes-transient contractor workforce, absenteeism associated with drug use, having to stand down workers
while awaiting test confirmation, ever-changing compositions of synthetic drugs and ‘legal highs’, and employees failing to declare prescription drugs.
A 2016 study published in the Internal Medicine Journal by Perth-based OHS Group evaluated the difference in prevalence of alcohol and illicit drug use across the oil and gas and construction industries.
This type of data is mainly derived from general population census surveys, whereas this study implemented direct substance screening, describing it as a more objective method.
This involved a randomised onsite drug screening, where a total of 489 specimens were collected across the two industries over a period of 12 months, and comparative analysis in relation to the prevalence of alcohol and drugs, their type, the user’s demographics, and the economic costs.
The results showed the 18 to 29-year-old age group and males had the highest prevalence of alcohol and drug use, with marijuana and amphetamines being the most common types of illicit drugs.
Putting the oil and gas industry alongside construction, the prevalence of positive alcohol and drug use in the construction sector was 8.6 per cent, significantly higher than the 0.04
per cent in the oil and gas sector. When adjusted for age, the prevalence in the oil and gas sector dropped to less than 0.001 per cent, highlighting substantial differences in workforce demographics and workplace safety regulations.
IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL FOR POSITIVE TESTS DURING SAFETY-CRITICAL WORK
In a note published on its Lexology platform, Clayton Utz explained a Fair Work Commission legal case, which made it clear that immediate dismissal for drug use at work could be justified in high-risk work environments with a zero-tolerance drug policy in place.
The operator of the Moomba gas field in South Australia terminated an employee after he returned a positive drug test result when presenting for work in August 2015.
Employed for three years as a derrickman performing drilling services, the worker contested his dismissal on the basis that it was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable.
The operator had adopted a zero-tolerance approach to drugs and alcohol in the workplace, making it clear in no uncertain terms that contravention of the policy could result in termination of employment.
Due to the high-risk nature of the workplace, workers also had to submit to random and “for cause” drug and alcohol testing.
The Fair Work Commission determined the operator was within its rights to terminate the employee on the basis of the positive drug test, particularly because he was required to perform work in a high-risk environment (drilling rig), which, if uncontrolled, could potentially expose him to serious injury or death.
A key consideration of the commission was that the conduct also posed risks to other workers.
It said: “Their safety onsite was dependent upon all crew members following policies and procedures, remaining vigilant and focused on their duties, and being fit for work.”
The operator admitted it had failed to properly notify the employee of the reason for his termination and should have met with him to provide an opportunity to respond to the termination proposal before making a final determination.
However, despite this failure to provide procedural fairness as required by the Fair Work Act, the commission found that had the employee been provided an opportunity to respond, the outcome would not have changed.
Clayton Utz explained that, given the determination of an unfair dismissal claim required the commission to consider
a number of factors in totality, it concluded that, due to the serious nature of the safety considerations, the lack of procedural fairness did not render the employee’s dismissal unfair.
The law firm said: “This case demonstrates the commission’s willingness to find that employer policies – which provide for disciplinary action including dismissal where an employee tests positive for drugs – may at least in the context of safety-critical work be lawful and reasonable.”
The commission stressed that employers should maintain clear, zero-tolerance drug and alcohol policies that outline the consequences of any breach, provide regular training on employee obligations, and ensure procedural fairness when considering termination for policy violations.
