June 2001 Volume 82 Number 6
"serving the protectors"
| June 2001 Volume 82 Number 6 "serving the protectors" |
|
|
|
|
| by Mark Carroll PASA Assistant Secretary |
Alcohol policy suspended
The Police Association notified a dispute with the Commissioner of Police in relation to the Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Police Workplace policy on April 30, 2001. This policy was launched by SAPOL in January.
As a result of the dispute notification, the Commissioner agreed to suspend the policy and return to the provisions of PCO Circular 517 - Drug and Alcohol policy - while the parties engaged the Grievance and Dispute Avoidance procedures as contained in the 1998 enterprise agreement.
The association supports a responsible alcohol and other drugs policy, providing for zero blood-alcohol content when performing duties that require employees to be armed or undertake urgent-duty driving. This has never been an issue. Further, the parties agree that no employees of SAPOL should remain at work or undertake any duty pertaining to their employment if they are impaired by alcohol or any other drug.
So why the dispute? If you work in a clause 14 (Police Officers Award) country station, especially a one-person station, then the policy in its current form requires you to be fit and able to return to duty at short notice. Clause 14 employees have been expected - by their line managers - to be on call 24 hours per day, seven days per week. SAPOL has not provided reliefs for many of these members who actually have to leave their districts to get an uninterrupted rostered day off.
Now imagine if you work at Marree - a one-person station that falls within the provisions of clause 14. The closest relief is Leigh Creek - about two hours away. It's summer, and the last 14 days have been over 40 degrees in the shade. Under the policy, you must have a zero blood-alcohol content when on duty and armed, or performing duties that may require you to be armed, or being required to drive a vehicle in an emergency or pursuit.
Clause 14 members must be fit and able to return to duty at short notice. You are on a day off and decide to have a few beers to quench the thirst. Murphy's Law kicks in and you get an urgent call to duty. If you respond, you are - under the policy - in breach. If you breach the policy, disciplinary charges will be laid and dismissal may be considered. Your only option is to call Leigh Creek - two hours away. Good luck.
It is not my aim to belittle the intent or spirit of the policy. But this example (and there are so many others) highlights the difficulty in dealing with this issue in a practical sense. Heavily focused on discipline and punishment, the policy requires these practical problems to be addressed. The association raised these and other concerns with SAPOL many times during the development of the policy. The policy was launched without notice to the association. Legal opinion was subsequently sought and a dispute notified.
The association will now meet with SAPOL representatives in an effort to address the practicalities of this issue. The association believes the policy should be focused on education and harm minimization, rather than discipline and punishment. Issues such as testing and causal factors need mention and development in the policy also.
It is unfortunate that the association had to notify a dispute. Workplace drug and alcohol programmes are not successful where there is not joint ownership between the employer and employee organizations. The association will use its best endeavours to ensure that a policy is designed in which we can all have ownership, as our health and safety at work is paramount.
|
||||||||||
|
The Police Journal Online is an
official publication of the Police Association of South Australia and is
published monthly. Editors of kindred publications can seek permission from the Editor to re-publish any Police Journal Online article. Copyright 2001 The Police Association of South Australia sustance |