Drug screening : One company’s obstacle-filled road to a successful program

Introduction In 1979, rumors of a developing drug problem within IMC Fertilizer's Carlsbad, NM workforce began to surface. For the next two years, a management team contacted local, state, and federal regulatory agencies that had the potential resources to help combat this apparently escalating problem. These contacts included the local police department, the county sheriff's office, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). IMC approached each agency with two proposals. The first required the agency provide an undercover agent for placement in the company's underground facilities. The alternative required the company to provide the agent with the participating agency lending necessary legal expertise and guidance to accumulate the necessary data. MSHA regulations prohibit intoxicating beverages and narcotics on mining property. They also forbid persons under the influence of alcohol or narcotics from working in or around mines. The agency could not, however, help with this problem. The remaining agencies were sympathetic, but were unwilling to assist in implementing either program, citing legal implications. Without exception, these agencies not only refused to provide help, they discouraged any type of undercover operation, searches, drug screenings, or using dogs trained in narcotics detection. As law enforcement officials, they reasoned that any such program constitutes potential civil rights violations. An attorney advised IMC that it was not required to adhere to the same guidelines as law enforcement and regulatory agencies. It was his legal opinion that the company could conduct an undercover operation. But he recommended finding a private firm that specialized in this type of investigation. An experienced firm should have the expertise to conduct the operation and avoid the legal pitfalls that could be encountered. The management team agreed with the attorney and elected to hire a private firm. After extensive research and evaluation, three reputable companies were contacted, advised of the needs, and asked to submit a proposal. Their initial response was enthusiastic. None, however, submitted a proposal. Each was unable to locate a qualified agent willing to work in an underground environment. Privacy and civil rights At this point, it was apparent that an undercover operation was not feasible due to the lack of inhouse expertise and the lack of outside assistance. After more research, it was concluded that the only viable options left were the ones that the law enforcement community had earlier discouraged. These options included locker and personal searches, use of dogs trained in narcotics detection, and drug screening or testing. The management team evaluated the pros and cons of locker and personal searches. They concluded that if conducted properly, this approach could eliminate the problems. The potential legal liabilities, however, appeared to be tremendous. Strict guidelines would have to be adhered to in order to avoid invasion of privacy and civil rights violations. This meant announcing locker searches before conducting them and obtaining written permission from an individual before searching his person. Although the group was reluctant to lose yet another option, it was concluded that conducting searches under these conditions would be ineffective. It would also convey the message to the workforce that the substance abusers had the upper hand. This author was extremely critical of this legal opinion at the time. I have since concluded that the attorney was correct. This occurred in mid-1982. Court decisions of that era indicated the legal and political climate was sensitive to these issues. These activities would probably have been prohibited even if they were