A Swedish construction worker employed by Assemblin was suspended from his job after testing positive for THC during a random drug test. Despite using cannabis on holiday in Spain, it led to him being suspended from his job for two months without pay. The employee claimed that he had not been under the influence during working hours and that his consumption of cannabis took place during leave, which he claimed would not affect his ability to work.
Union negotiation
The trade union Byggnads stepped in to support the employee in negotiations with the employer. In defence of the construction worker, it was said that THC acid can remain in the body long after the psychoactive effect of the drug has worn off, and that this should therefore not be used as a basis for assessing work ability or influence during working hours.
Continued drug testing
After the initial suspension, additional drug tests were conducted, all of which showed negative results. Despite this, the employer’s suspension decision remained, which had significant financial consequences for the employee. Not only did he lose his salary during the two months he was suspended, but he also suffered long-term financial problems as a result of the incident.
Legal process and decisions
The case was taken to the Labour Court (AD) where Byggnads argued that THC acid in the urine is not sufficient to prove that someone is under the influence at the time of testing. However, AD did not share this view and ruled in favour of the employer. The court found that the employer’s right to maintain a drug-free workplace outweighed the arguments that THC acid does not necessarily imply impaired work ability.
Serious consequences
The decision meant that Assemblin was right in its actions and that Byggnads had to pay the legal costs. Firing the employee was the right thing to do. For Byggnads and the employee, the verdict was a disappointment and an important lesson about the legal boundaries surrounding drug testing and suspension. The decision underlined the employer’s right to demand drug-free workplaces and act on positive outcomes, including in the case of drugs consumed during leave.
The union’s reaction
Byggnads expressed disappointment with the verdict and said that it does not take sufficient account of the scientific differences between having THC acid in the urine and being actively under the influence of the drug. They stressed the importance of continuing to fight for fair and reasonable working conditions for their members, and that this judgment should not deter them from questioning employers’ decisions when they are perceived as unfair.