 |
Workplace Drug Testing and the Human Rights Act 1998
|
||
 |
FAQ's
|
Workplace Drug Testing and the Human Rights Act 1998The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights. Although it only directly applies to ‘public authorities’, it is anticipated that it will set the standards for the actions of private sector companies. Article 8 states that everyone has the right to respect for their privacy. However exercising this right must not interfere with the rights and freedoms of others, the protection of health and morals, national security, safety and the prevention of disorder or crime. In essence the rights of the individual must be balanced against the rights of others, and of society as a whole. Case Law in the European Court of Human Rights has established the principle of proportionality. This means that an infringement of Rights may be justified and lawful if it is within the law and is necessary and appropriate for achieving a legitimate aim. The Court has also held that where an employee voluntarily enters into an agreement or contract that restricts their Rights, this is also acceptable. The folowing case illustrate how the Act is being applied in relation to drugs, alcohol and the workplace. Whitefield v General Medical Council ([2003] IRLR 52 A doctor’s fitness to practice was held to be seriously impaired for reasons including his harmful use of alcohol. The GMC imposed conditions, one of which was that he ‘abstained absolutely from the consumption of alcohol’ and submitted to random blood and urine tests. The doctor argued that this was a breach of Article 8 of the Convention, but his appeal was dismissed for the following reasons:
|
|
|
|||
