A plan by Irish Ferries to enforce strict limits on worker alcohol levels throughout the entire company is meeting with stiff resistance from SIPTU.
The company proposes to introduce a new drug and alcohol policy "for all staff", a recent Labour Court hearing was told: "The policy prohibits staff from being under the influence of drugs at work and applies the driving limits to alcohol at work."
Significantly, it would allow "with cause" testing of staff, a move that has been rejected out of hand by the union.
There were clear distinctions and procedures to be followed between "sea-going" and "shore-based" staff, from an industrial relations viewpoint, SIPTU argued. The management-union agreement for clerical staff contained no provision for drug and alcohol testing and provided for full adherence to the existing grievance and disputes procedure: "There has not been a problem of drug or alcohol consumption amongst clerical staff."
Neither was there any shore-based "office staff" testing among the company's competitors, the union argued.
Irish Ferries, in response, insisted: "The company is a public service industry where the issue of safety, in virtually all aspects of its operations, is not only paramount, but governed by national and international regulations, law and practice." The health and safety of passengers and customers, crew and staff should be seen as ends in themselves, it emphasised.
"The policy avoids decisions on compliance or non-compliance being influenced or effected though one person only, as it requires two managers, one from another department, to be of the opinion that a staff member is in breach before discipline process can be invoked," the company argued. All contracts of employment inferred that staff must present for duty in a fit state "and remain in such a state whilst on duty".
In the vast majority of personal or collective agreements, it added, the issue of drugs or alcohol abuse was normally treated as gross misconduct, warranting dismissal.
The court deputy chairman, Mr Kevin Duffy, in framing his recommendation, noted that the union had accepted the "general principles" of the company's drug and alcohol policy. "The dispute relates solely to the proposed use of testing procedures for the purpose of compliance," he said.
The company, for its part, said Mr Duffy, accepted that co-operation with the proposed procedures could not be made mandatory in the case of existing staff: "However, in its present form, the proposal to regard a refusal to undergo a test as equating to testing positive renders the procedure de facto compulsory."
The court believed the success of the policy was dependent on an effective system for ensuring compliance: "The court further believes that this will inevitably involve mandatory testing in appropriate situations."
He recommended the parties engage in further discussions. If final agreement is not reached before March 31st the dispute is to be referred back to the Labour Court for a definitive recommendation.