Pub Bullshit or truth? Police station drug tests made public
Discussion
I need to keep some of details of this under wraps, so forgive me for being a little circumspect.
I suspect someone I know indirectly is lying, but don't know which details are accurate.
They were accused of a crime at work, and arrested. They were then drug tested ( as I understand is routine nowadays ) , and the positive results made public to their employer, which they say then resulted in their employment being terminated.
To the best of my knowledge such a test would have to be kept private, and not released to the employer.
The job was a management role in retail - would HSE rules affect this ?
My "friend" claims that the drug test was the reson for his termination, not his conduct, but it does not ring true. If the drug test *was* the real reason, does he have a case that the results should not have been made public ?
I suspect someone I know indirectly is lying, but don't know which details are accurate.
They were accused of a crime at work, and arrested. They were then drug tested ( as I understand is routine nowadays ) , and the positive results made public to their employer, which they say then resulted in their employment being terminated.
To the best of my knowledge such a test would have to be kept private, and not released to the employer.
The job was a management role in retail - would HSE rules affect this ?
My "friend" claims that the drug test was the reson for his termination, not his conduct, but it does not ring true. If the drug test *was* the real reason, does he have a case that the results should not have been made public ?
I have had a bit of experience in this field as an employer.
You would be surprised how many times I have been asked by previous employers for a reference, and on one occasion actually telephoned due to the very strange actions of an ex employee and what they were doing in their new job.
It is often the case that when someone has 'left' their previous job under somewhat dubious circumstances which would paint a bad light on them to future employers that they will use damage limitation to try and mitigate their reasons for leaving.
For example, 30 sick days over the course of a year leading to dismissal, maybe in mitigation because they felt bullied in the workplace and someone had a personal axe to grind agains them due to some personal reason (very unprofessional) and eventually forced them out.
This of course may have happened, but there are a lot of holes in the story. What most likely happened is the person was phoning in sick every Friday and some Mondays. They were politely asked about this by their superior, but the situation continued and thus the disciplinary procedure kicked in and they felt as if their superior did not like them and had something in for them.
If the person was in a management role in retail, and they were arrested I am guessing that there was some good evidence they were stealing. The drug test which was perhaps done to root out the underlying problem came back positive. Perhaps this was released back to the employer who was obviously looking to press charges as this was a relevant fact to the case. For example, perhaps he was stealing due to the fact he had a drug habit. Perhaps this would affect the way the case was handled and even mitigation in sentencing?
I find it highly unlikely that the decision was made over the guys drug taking. In a lot of employment contracts it does state that the use of illegal drugs is prohibited by employees. Perhaps the scenario was is that after the guy was arrested they just wanted rid of him. They didnt really want to have to come to court and they wanted rid and with the ammunition of the drug test had enough ammunition to sack him and didnt bother following up the case.
On the other hand they guy who was a drug user and had enough evidence against his dishonesty to be arrested may also be creative with the truth...
If it is the case that you are a prospective employer, I would have an 'off the record' chat with the previous employer. You will find out a lot more over the phone than what might be filled out in a one line answer on a form asking 'Would you employ X again?'!
You would be surprised how many times I have been asked by previous employers for a reference, and on one occasion actually telephoned due to the very strange actions of an ex employee and what they were doing in their new job.
It is often the case that when someone has 'left' their previous job under somewhat dubious circumstances which would paint a bad light on them to future employers that they will use damage limitation to try and mitigate their reasons for leaving.
For example, 30 sick days over the course of a year leading to dismissal, maybe in mitigation because they felt bullied in the workplace and someone had a personal axe to grind agains them due to some personal reason (very unprofessional) and eventually forced them out.
This of course may have happened, but there are a lot of holes in the story. What most likely happened is the person was phoning in sick every Friday and some Mondays. They were politely asked about this by their superior, but the situation continued and thus the disciplinary procedure kicked in and they felt as if their superior did not like them and had something in for them.
If the person was in a management role in retail, and they were arrested I am guessing that there was some good evidence they were stealing. The drug test which was perhaps done to root out the underlying problem came back positive. Perhaps this was released back to the employer who was obviously looking to press charges as this was a relevant fact to the case. For example, perhaps he was stealing due to the fact he had a drug habit. Perhaps this would affect the way the case was handled and even mitigation in sentencing?
I find it highly unlikely that the decision was made over the guys drug taking. In a lot of employment contracts it does state that the use of illegal drugs is prohibited by employees. Perhaps the scenario was is that after the guy was arrested they just wanted rid of him. They didnt really want to have to come to court and they wanted rid and with the ammunition of the drug test had enough ammunition to sack him and didnt bother following up the case.
On the other hand they guy who was a drug user and had enough evidence against his dishonesty to be arrested may also be creative with the truth...
If it is the case that you are a prospective employer, I would have an 'off the record' chat with the previous employer. You will find out a lot more over the phone than what might be filled out in a one line answer on a form asking 'Would you employ X again?'!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff