By Glenn Dobson, CEO, The Drug Detection Agency Group
The wider lessons for employers from Brown v Alliance Group Limited [2026] NZERA 569
A defensible workplace drug and alcohol programme is not a pass-or-fail exercise. It is a complete safety system built on clear policy, proper management of prescription medication, accredited independent testing and timely intelligence.
The recent Employment Relations Authority decision in Brown v Alliance Group Limited provides an important reminder for New Zealand employers about the complexities of managing drugs, prescription medication and safety in the workplace. The case involved a long-serving employee working in a safety-sensitive environment who was dismissed after returning a second non-negative workplace drug test. Importantly, the employee had previously disclosed that he was prescribed medicinal cannabis for chronic pain.
The Authority found that the employee had been unjustifiably dismissed and ordered reinstatement, reimbursement of lost wages and significant compensation. It would be easy to conclude that the decision is simply another warning to employers about taking disciplinary action after a positive drug test. I do not believe that is the right lesson.
The more important lesson is that workplace drug and alcohol risk must be actively managed.
That requires good policy, proper management of prescription medication, robust testing procedures, useful and secure data, sound decision-making and, above all, an unwavering focus on workplace safety.
Policy matters – but it needs to be the right policy
Every organisation undertaking workplace drug and alcohol testing should have a clear, current and fit-for-purpose drug and alcohol policy. But having a policy sitting in a folder is not enough. The policy needs to explain what is expected of employees, when testing may occur, how testing will be undertaken, what constitutes a breach, how prescription medication will be managed and what process follows a non-negative or confirmed positive result.
Just as importantly, employers need to follow their own policy. One lesson from the Alliance decision is the danger of treating policy as an automatic disciplinary formula. The Authority accepted that Mr Brown had breached Alliance’s drug and alcohol policy by failing his second drug test, but concluded that this did not automatically establish serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal. The Authority was particularly critical of what it described as a ‘simplistic and rigid application’ of a policy that was primarily directed towards illicit drug or alcohol abuse.
That distinction is important. A strong policy establishes the rules and processes that protect workers and employers, but it also needs to recognise that every situation is not identical. Employers must still investigate, understand the circumstances, follow a fair process and make a decision based on the actual risk presented. This becomes particularly important when prescription medication is involved.
Prescription medication is a significant workplace safety issue
The increasing availability of medicinal cannabis has made the management of prescription medication more complicated for employers. A prescription does not automatically make a drug irrelevant to workplace safety. Many legitimate medications can affect alertness, reaction time, judgement, coordination or a person’s ability to safely perform particular tasks. Equally, the fact that a prescribed substance is detected in a drug test does not automatically mean the employee has engaged in misconduct. That is why employers need a proper process for managing potentially impairing medication.
Employees have obligations too. Where medication may affect their ability to safely perform their role – particularly in a safety-sensitive environment – they need to disclose that risk in accordance with workplace policy. Employers then need to do something meaningful with that information. In the Alliance case, the employee had disclosed his medicinal cannabis prescription years earlier. The Authority noted that there appeared to have been no meaningful follow-up, agreement about ongoing monitoring or assessment of potential impairment risk. Later, Alliance’s health and safety manager was aware of the prescription and ongoing medicinal cannabis use, but no health monitoring was in place; prescribed usage was effectively assumed to be safe.
Disclosure should be the start of a risk management process, not the end of it. Depending on the medication and the person’s role, that process may involve occupational health advice, appropriate medical information concerning fitness for work, consideration of dosage and timing, temporary modification of duties, monitoring, or other suitable controls. The Authority ultimately ordered that Mr Brown undergo an assessment by a suitably qualified occupational health specialist focusing on his pain-management regime, safe functionality and the measures that could support his return to work. In many cases, that type of assessment would be far better undertaken before an incident occurs, rather than after a dispute reaches the Authority.
Independent, accredited drug testing matters
Another lesson employers should take from cases such as this is the importance of the quality and independence of their workplace drug-testing programme. Drug testing can have significant consequences. A result can remove someone from a safety-sensitive role, initiate an investigation and, depending on the circumstances and the applicable policy, potentially contribute to disciplinary action.
Employers therefore need to be confident that their programme is technically robust, properly administered and capable of withstanding scrutiny. In my view, workplace testing should be undertaken by an appropriately accredited, independent third-party provider operating to the relevant standards. Independence matters. The person conducting a test should not have a stake in whether an employee passes or fails. Their focus should be on correctly identifying the donor, following the required collection procedure, maintaining chain of custody, correctly operating the testing device, recording the result and ensuring that any required confirmatory laboratory testing occurs.
Accreditation provides another important layer of assurance. It demonstrates that the provider’s systems, people, equipment and processes have been independently assessed against recognised requirements.
From testing service to trusted safety partner
A testing provider should be a trusted safety partner, not simply a service provider or a box ticker. In today’s workplace, employers should expect considerably more from their provider than simply turning up, conducting a test and reporting a result. A comprehensive testing programme generates valuable information about the nature and location of drug risk within an organisation. An experienced accredited provider should be able to analyse that data and help an employer identify emerging trends – whether that is an increase in a particular drug, a change in the substances being detected, or higher rates of non-negative or confirmed positive results at particular sites, regions or parts of the business. Critically, that information needs to be timely, relevant and readily accessible. There is limited value in receiving a historical report some time after a risk has emerged. Authorised employer personnel should have access to current testing information through a secure electronic platform whenever they need it.
That platform should be more than a repository for individual results. It should help the employer understand what is happening across the organisation – by location, testing reason, drug category and over time – so emerging risks can be identified and acted upon. Because drug-testing information is sensitive personal information, access must be appropriately controlled and the information securely held.
For a national employer, the data may show that one region or site has a materially higher positive rate than the rest of the organisation. Alternatively, the overall positive rate may remain stable while the substances being detected begin to change. Both signals may be important from a health and safety perspective. This is where data helps an employer move from reacting to individual results to proactively managing organisational risk. An increase in methamphetamine detections, for example, may justify targeted education, communication or changes to the testing programme. If one location consistently records a higher rate than comparable sites, the employer can investigate why and decide whether additional controls are needed.
Importantly, the objective should be to identify patterns and risk, not to target individuals. Over time, quality data also enables an employer to assess whether its drug and alcohol programme is working. Trends can be monitored, locations compared and emerging drug risks identified before they become more significant safety issues. This combination of quality testing, timely data, secure technology, trend analysis and expert advice is where an experienced accredited provider adds significant value. The relationship should not end when the test is completed.
A trusted provider should be able to sit alongside an employer and explain what the data is showing, where risk appears to be emerging and which areas may need attention. That is very different from simply supplying a testing service. It turns testing information into useful safety intelligence and supports better decisions. The Authority recognised in Brown that, although drug testing can be a ‘blunt instrument’, it serves a legitimate purpose as an overall mitigation of workplace risk. The answer is not less rigorous testing. It is better testing, better information, better use of data and better decision making – all delivered through a trusted partnership focused on keeping people safe.
Safety must remain paramount
Ultimately, workplace drug and alcohol programmes exist for one overriding reason: safety.
Employers have people operating machinery, driving vehicles, working at heights, handling dangerous equipment and making decisions where mistakes can have serious consequences. The Alliance case itself involved an employee working with dangerous equipment in a safety-sensitive area. Employers cannot ignore the potential effects of drugs because a substance has been legally prescribed. But neither should they assume that the presence of a substance automatically establishes serious misconduct. The objective should be to identify and manage risk.
That requires employers to ask the right questions: What does our policy require? Has the employee complied with their disclosure obligations? What does the test actually tell us? Is the medication prescribed and being taken as prescribed? Could it affect the employee’s ability to safely perform this particular role? Do we need independent occupational health or medical advice? Are there reasonable controls that can manage the risk?
Those questions are especially important where medicinal cannabis is involved because the legal status of a medication, the detection of THC and actual workplace impairment are not the same thing. Employers need policies and processes sophisticated enough to recognise those distinctions without losing sight of their health and safety responsibilities.
The lesson for employers
Brown v Alliance Group Limited should not be interpreted as saying employers cannot take strong action where drugs present a workplace safety risk. The Authority recognised the legitimacy of drug testing and referred to Australian authority supporting the reasonableness of workplace drug and alcohol policies in safety-critical environments. Rather, the decision demonstrates why employers need a complete drug and alcohol risk-management system.
Have a robust policy. Follow it. Properly address prescription medication. Require appropriate disclosure and act on it. Use an accredited independent testing partner. Demand timely, relevant and securely accessible data. Obtain occupational health or medical advice where necessary. Investigate properly before making employment decisions. Throughout that process, the fundamental objective must stay in sight. A workplace drug and alcohol programme is not ultimately about catching people using drugs. It is about ensuring that everyone who turns up for work can perform their job safely – and that everyone gets to go home safely at the end of the day.
It’s about protecting the girl on the bike.
Case reference
Paul Brendon Brown v Alliance Group Limited [2026] NZERA 569, determination dated 20 August 2026.