DRUG TESTING

IN WORKPLACE
by: Jaryl B. Difuntorum
 Drug Testing
• looks for the presence of
one or more illegal or
prescription drugs in
your urine, blood, saliva,
hair, or sweat. 
• used to find out whether
or not a person has taken
a certain drug or drugs.
• Used for employment,
sports organizations,
legal or forensic
purposes and monitoring
opioid use.
 ETHICAL ISSUES
• occur when a given decision, scenario or activity creates a conflict with a
society’s moral principles.
• In business, it is a situation where a moral conflict arises and must be addressed.
In other words, it is an occasion where a moral standard is questioned.
•  Both individuals and businesses can be involved in these conflicts, since any of
their activities might be put to question from an ethical standpoint. Individuals are
subject to these issues in their relationships with other individuals or in their
relationships with organizations and same goes for organizations.
PROBABLE INDICATORS OF ARISING ETHICAL CONFLICT

1. Doubtful Financial Problems

• When allocated budgets are not and financials are not being reached and delivered as properly as they
should be, this could mean a more serious problem.
• If sales are way above than the usual, or if revenues exceed what are being expected, there may be
something behind that is happening.

2. Unusual relationships within the business

• High-risk employees are those who have trusted roles in finance or purchasing. These individuals have
more access to company assets, which means they have more opportunity to commit fraud. If there are
close relationships among a group of such people, or even among one high-risk individual and a small
group of others, it can be a sign of fraud.
COMPANIES/BUSINESSES ENGAGED IN AN
DRUG TESTING
 Factories
 Supermarkets
 Food and Beverages Distributors
 BPO Companies

Companies or businesses listed above face ethical issue of drug testing in their workplace
due to the nature of their work. With the difficulty of their jobs, employees may fall onto the
temptation of vices like drugs. Drug testing is a must for them in order to maintain their health
status. In that way, their work will not be affected as well as the reputation of the
establishment.
MIRANT PHILS. CORP
Founded: 1982
Subsidiaries: TeaM Energy Corporation, MORE
Parent organizations: Tokyo Electric Power

• Largest independent power producers in the Philippines.

• In 2001, the Southern Company spun off Mirant Corporation and
Southern Energy Asia-Pacific Limited came to be known as Mirant
Asia-Pacific Limited. The latter, through Mirant Philippines,
continued to operate the Pagbilao and Sual Power Stations, and
began operating the Panay and Toledo power stations in the Visayas.
• By 2007, the company was ready to embark on a new journey. Two
of Japan’s largest and most formidable conglomerates – Tokyo
Electric Power Company and Marubeni Corporation – teamed up to
acquire interest in Mirant Philippines, which later became known as
TeaM Energy Corporation.
• Joe was hired by MPhils. Corp. as its logistics officer. In 2004, the company conducted a random
drug test. Joe was randomly chosen to be tested for illegal drug use. Through an intracompany
correspondence, the employees were informed that they were selected for random drug testing to be
conducted on the same day that they received the correspondence.

• Joe was duly notified that he was scheduled to be tested after lunch on that day. His receipt of the
notice was evidenced by his signature on the correspondence.

• At around 11:30 a.m. of the same day, Joe received a phone call from his wife’s colleague who
informed him that a bombing incident occurred near his wife’s work station in Israel. He
immediately proceeded to the Israeli Embassy to confirm the news on the alleged bombing incident.
Before he left the office on the day of the random drug test, he first informed the secretary of his
department, Irene, at around 12:30 p.m. that he will give attention to the emergency phone call and
he also told her that he would be back at the office as soon as he has resolved his predicament.
• Joe returned to the company’s office in the early evening of the same day. When he was finally able to
charge his cell phone at the office, he received a text message from a member of the Drug Watch Committee
who conducted the drug test, informing him to participate in the said drug test. He immediately called up the
committee member to explain the reasons for his failure to submit himself to the random drug test that day.
He also proposed that he would submit to a drug test the following day at his own expense.
• Few days later, Joe received a Show Cause Notice requiring him to explain in writing why he should not be
charged with “unjustified refusal to submit to random drug testing.” Joe did as instructed.
• Despite his explanation, the Investigating Panel found Joe guilty of “unjustified refusal to submit to random
drug testing” and recommended a penalty of four working weeks suspension without pay, instead of
termination, due to the presence of mitigating circumstances. In the same deport, the Investigating Panel
also recommended that petitioner corporation should review its policy on random drug testing, especially of
the ambiguities cast by the term “unjustified refusal.”
• The company’s AVP recommended that Joe should be terminated from employment instead of merely being
suspended. The AVP opined that even if he did not refuse outright to take the random drug test, he avoided
the same.
• To resolve the said ethical issue on the part of the
company, they should have given Joe the benefit of the
doubt to clearly explain himself for a better argument.

• To resolve the said ethical issue on the part of the public,

people should have investigated first before coming into
conclusion.
 REFERENCES

• https://medlineplus.gov/lab-tests/drug-testing/
• https://www.myaccountingcourse.com/accounting-dictionary/ethical-issues
• https://
www.acfeinsights.com/acfe-insights/7-warning-signs-that-may-indicate-fraud-wit
hin-your-company
• https://business.inquirer.net/269305/illegally-dismissed