1. The Endless Debate: Saliva Versus Urine Testing
Which is the best testing method for workplace drug and alcohol screening: saliva
or urine testing? Whatever answer is given can be right or wrong, depending on the
perspective and opinion of the employer. Over the last year there has been a flurry
of activity conducted by the Fair Work Commission, the National Association of
Testing Authorities (NATA), and the Australia Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU)
concerning this very question. The decisions and opinions cover the entire spectrum
from no drug testing to urine testing. Who is right (or wrong)? There is no easy
answer because much of the debate is not defined simply by a discussion as to
whether each type of test is accurate. It becomes an emotional debate concerning
invasion of privacy and personal feelings about someone taking any type of body
fluid, whether saliva, urine, or even a person’s breath for alcohol testing.
The discussion has been ongoing and involves numerous participants:
 On August 14, 2012 the full bench of Fair Work Australia upheld an earlier
decision in which the NSW State Government utility company Endeavour
Energy was denied the option of conducting urine tests on workers because
the tests could detect drugs that may have been used while not working.1
 In July 2013, the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia
announced it would withdraw the ability to get accredited for on-site initial,
oral fluid testing under Australian Standard 4760:2006, citing unresolved
technical issues.2
 On October 28, 2013 the Fair Work Commission upheld an employee
dismissal resulting from the employee’s refusal to provide a urine sample for
a random drug test. The employee worked for AWH Pty Limited. In Raymond
Briggs-v-AWH Pty Ltd[2013] FWCFB 3316 (5 June 2013) the employee had
argued that a saliva sample was more appropriate. However FWC said the
dismissal was valid because he had refused to comply with a “lawful and
reasonable request” and the employee was “contractually bound to comply”
due to the existence of an Enterprise Agreement.3
 In January 2014, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union announced it
was pursuing a legal challenge to urine testing at mine sites. The AMWU
claims that saliva testing is accurate enough for the West Australian police
and criminal courts and therefore should be good enough for mining
employers. The union also believes that urine testing is an unnecessary
invasion of privacy.
Still No Resolution
Despite the many rulings and NATA decision, the matter of saliva-versus-urine
testing remains unresolved. That is largely due to the many issues involved in drug
and alcohol testing programs, ranging from workplace safety to privacy. In fact, the

2. privacy issue has two components in regards to urine testing. First, to ensure urine
samples are not adulterated or exchanged for previously collected samples, there is
usually a witness present during collection. In truth, if there were not people who
try to cover up drug use, there would be no need for witnesses during sample
collection.
The second privacy issue concerns the fact that urine tests can detect drugs used 5
to 10 days earlier, depending on the drug. Saliva tests detect drugs used within the
last 2 to 3 days. Therefore, a urine test could inform an employer about employee
behaviour while not on duty.
In the Fair Work Commission’s full bench decision, the Commissioners took note of
the fact the employee was bound by the company’s Enterprise Agreement which
required urine testing. Urine testing was also noted as being a common practice
within the company and the mining industry. However, the Commission did not
address whether saliva or urine testing is the best method.
First Concern: Employee Safety
The AMWU has said it is putting “BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Woodside” on notice.
However, Rio Tinto already stated that it understands that urine testing is more
reliable than saliva testing, and the first concern is the safety of its employees.
Therefore, the company will continue urine testing.4
For Rio Tinto, any potential
embarrassment an employee might experience is not comparable to the risk of
injury or death due to drug and alcohol use. However, it is becoming clearer that
any company using urine testing should consider putting an Enterprise Agreement
in place. Job candidates unwilling to commit to the requirements always have the
option of finding less risky employment elsewhere.
Onsite saliva and urine drug test are drug screenings and positive results should be
verified by a pathology laboratory, and especially before any personnel actions are
taken like suspension or dismissal. It is unlikely that the debate over which testing
method is best for safety reasons while protecting privacy will continue on a case-
by-case basis. One thing that is clear right now is that there should be workplace
drug testing and alcohol test in place. The form of the testing is between the
employers and the legal system. CMM Technology offers a variety of both saliva and
urine testing supplies and equipment to accommodate any decision the employer
makes.
This article has been taken from: http://www.cmm.com.au/articles/the-endless-
debate-saliva-versus-urine-testing/