We had a customer call our office and ask us if we did random drug testing of our employees.  We said we do not, and he told us that if we did, one of our employees would not pass and went on to describe that employee.  We asked if something happened while he was a customer here, and he said, "No--It happened off of our work site." He only gave his first name.  Do we have an obligation to tell our employee about someone calling us and saying this or do we just let it be, since he did not give his last name.  We just don't know if we are somehow obligated to that employee to tell her that this call was received by us. 

 THANKS for your input.

 MB

There are two ways to look at this.  One is that you have absolutely no proof that this is true and has really happened. The other is that you have now been put on notice that something illegal may be going on and one of your employees could be under the influence of something while at work.  The biggest issue I see here is about getting into personal business of someone while they are not on the job.  However, if what was done while off the job is now affecting their ability to do their job (i.e. did drugs while off duty but come to work under the influence) then you have a right to be concerned.

Let me ask you a couple of questions that will help us help you.  What position is this employee in?  Is this employee driving a company vehicle?  If you don't have a random drug test policy, what does your policy say about suspicion of being under the influence while on the job?  Would/have you tested someone if you have reasonable suspicion that someone is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol while on the job?  Also, what type of employee is this person?  Have you had performance issues in the past? Has there been any incidents that would lead you to believe in the past that this employee was using drugs on the job?

It's a tough balancing act between protecting your employees from anonymous tipsters with personal axes to grind against them while also protecting the Company, co-workers, and the public from the potential mayhem caused by a drug abusing employee.  I hope you have a drug free workplace policy and that you address testing in that or a related policy.

If the Anonymous Tipster reports off duty drug use AND the allegedly drug abusing individual operates dangerous or potentially dangerous equipment, operates a motor vehicle, handles cash, or otherwise does anything for which drug abuse may pose a serious exposure to the Company or any person, then you need to send them out for a test.  Document your reasons thoroughly, label the cause "reasonable suspicion", and simply tell the employee that you have a report of off-duty drug use and, because of their duties, it's cause for concern and you need to send them out for drug screening.  Make sure they understand it's not a personal afront: the nature of their duties requires the Company to be highly sensitive to the potential problems caused by drug abusing employees.

Normally, when I get an anonymous tip, I get as much information as I can about the alleged drug use and have a frank talk with the employee of interest.  If their denial is convincing and their potential drug use does not pose a serious risk then I document the episode and put it in an incidence file.  Eventually, if there's enough smoke in the file, I'll be concerned about fire and send them out for a test.  The documentation becomes a bullet for use later in a reasonable suspicion argument if that becomes necessary.  If the person fails to deny ("what I do on my own time is none of your business") or denies unconvincingly, then I send them for a test.

I normally re-assign people in risk-posing positions to less-risky positions or suspend them with pay pending the outcome of the test.

Great advice by TXHRGuy -- While I agree it is a tough balancing act and see the other messages posted, my radar is going off with "a customer" calling who "only gave his first name" who saw this person off duty.  If this were a well known customer who has a strong relationship with your company, that is one thing.  But I would not put too much stock in a truly anonymous call like this without any other suspiscion of drug usage, no signs of at work, no drop in performance, not driving company equipment, etc.  

I would have a frank discussion with the employee and let them know if any of the above does happen (reasonable suspicsion), then we will take this call into account.

 But for all you know, this is his ex-wife's new boyfriend or someone else looking to hurt him.

I had the exact reaction as HRforME--someone is trying to sabotage this person's reputation with his or her employer. 

If it was a serious complaint from a concerned client, a last name and return number would have been given.  Did the caller say the employee threatened him, or just seemed under the influence. Why did the caller phone the employer and not the police?  How would you react if someone called and said they saw your employee drunk outside a bar off hours? 

I think HRforME's advice is sound. Unless you have grounds for suspicion other than this call, I would proceed with extreme caution.

I too share the skepticism about the value of this anonymous tip.  However, let me put my advice into perspective with an analogy.  What would you do if someone called in an anonymous tip about sexual harassment?  There's no question that the Company would then have a duty to investigate.  Why is a person's alleged off duty use of illegal drugs less of a concern than sexual harassment if that person's work requires them to have their head on their shoulders?

Now, we don't know what the targetted employee's role is.  Let's say that person is a Greyound Bus driver, or a news helicopter pilot, or a crane operator, or the safety officer in a heavy manufacturing plant, or a machine operator in a heavy manufacturing environment, or a fork lift operator.  You can end up with some pretty serious liability if you fail to follow up and the targetted individual subsequently has a fatality accident and is found to be under the influence of something inappropriate, particularly so if the anonymous tipster then comes forward (with a recording of the conversation).

I don't really see this as any different from a harassment tip: the employer should at least take some small steps to look into this.  If the employee's role would pose great harm to the company or any person if he were to allow the illegal use of drugs to interfere with his or her work, then I think it's a mistake not to test.  If it comes out negative, then there will be no pall of suspicion over this person which is in his or her best interest anyway.  If it comes out positive, well, you didn't really want them in that role anyway.  Personally, I prefer my airline pilots to be clean and sober when they climb into the cockpit. 

If the person mops floors by hand with no access to particularly sensitive information or items of value, then it's nowhere near as serious a situation.

I see the liability from the employer's side of not doing something, but what is the employer's responsibility for making sure this isn't a bogus complaint? You have to balance those two...it is not an easy call either way.

I know a lot of times people complaining want to remain anonymous.  But one of the first things we explain to them is that while we will try to keep the information as confidential as possible, that is not always a possibility.  I just have a problem with someone not being willing to put a name to a complaint that could possibly radically affect someone's ability to stay employed. 

I definitely agree that if this person is in a sensitive position, I would be more likely to send for a drug test. 

I can see both sides of the issue and that is why I asked the OP earlier what position the person is in, if there has ever been an issue with this employee before, and what the reasonable suspicion policy is. 

At my previous company we had a handwritten note left on a supervisors desk early one morning that told us an employee was coming to work under the influence of alcohol everyday.  It was signed "a concerned employee."  We did not have a random drug/alcohol test policy but we did have a reasonable suspicion policy. Everyday I walked the plant floor numerous times, sometimes with the General Manager.  After this note was found I did my normal rounds with the General Manager.  We would stop and talk to numerous employees.  We observed this employee, from a distance, barely able to walk and then walk into something. When we walked over to her, she reaked of alcohol, her eyes were all red, and she could barely put a sentence together. I asked her if she was feeling ok.  She said she was fine.  We followed our reasonable suspicion policy and had a supervisor take her for a drug/alcohol test.  We suspended her for the rest of the day and had the supervisor take her home.  We got the test results the next day.  Her BAC was almost triple the legal limit in the state.  When we brought her back in to terminate her, she reaked of alcohol and appeared intoxicated again.  We would not let her drive home and had someone come get her.

I think the OP needs to observe this employee and take into consideration if past behavior is an indication that the claim may be true.  There are a lot of variables here that we don't know about that could change how they handle the situation.

I would have to agree. This sounds like someone acting out of spite and although I agree in part with TXHRGuy, I think you may be opening up a can of worms.I would refer to my policy and stick to it. I would suggest that you document the day, time, and gender of the individual that called and the entire statement of said "customer". Place it in a file( sorry guys, from my employee relations days) and review it again in 30days. I would suggest you review your handbook and if you don't have a solid policy about "after work conduct"-  then, this is one I may watch from a distance- but abstain from any action unless the "named" employee starts to exhibit behavior of someone on drugs.

Angie

Director of Human Resources