Employee Drug Testing and Termination in Egypt

Employee Drug Testing in Egypt does not automatically justify dismissal, as a positive result alone may not meet the legal grounds for termination.

Drug testing in the workplace presents a delicate balance between an employer’s right to maintain a safe and compliant workplace and an employee’s statutory employment protections. The issue is particularly important where an employee tests positive for a narcotic substance but there is no evidence that the employee was intoxicated or affected during working hours.

This issue was recently considered by the Egyptian Court of Cassation in Appeal No. 4085 of Judicial Year 93 (Labour), concerning an employee whose periodic drug test revealed tramadol use. Although the test was positive, the employee had not been found intoxicated or affected while at work. The Court ultimately rejected the employer’s claim for termination.

The decision highlights an important distinction under Egyptian law between testing positive for drug use and being under the influence of drugs during working hours, while also raising practical considerations for employers seeking to implement workplace drug-testing policies and disciplinary procedures.

Drug Testing Requirements

Egyptian law permits employers to require employees to undergo drug testing, subject to the applicable statutory requirements. Article 135 of Labour Law No. 14 of 2025 requires an employee to undergo medical testing for drug use whenever requested by the employer and at the employer’s expense. Testing must be conducted by the General Authority for Health Insurance or the Central Laboratories of the Ministry of Health in accordance with the prescribed procedures and safeguards. These include re-examination of the same sample on the day of collection and, where the results differ, confirmatory testing by either competent authority. If a positive result is confirmed, the employee must be referred to the competent labour court for adjudication. The employer must also maintain confidentiality throughout the testing process and may not disclose the employee’s health status based on the test.

A separate regime applies under Law No. 73 of 2021 to specified public-sector and state-related entities and other institutions falling within its scope. For employees covered by that law, drug testing is a condition of both appointment and continued employment. A confirmed positive result following the prescribed testing and confirmatory procedures may result in termination by operation of law, while deliberate refusal or evasion of testing may also constitute grounds for termination.

Law No. 73 of 2021 does not generally apply to ordinary private-sector employers. Accordingly, private-sector employers must rely on the Labour Law and their approved internal work regulations when addressing drug testing and its consequences, and cannot automatically apply the termination regime under Law No. 73 merely because an employee tests positive.

Pre-employment drug testing is not a general statutory requirement for ordinary private-sector employers in Egypt. However, there is no general prohibition on an employer requiring a prospective employee to undergo drug testing as a condition of employment, provided that the testing is conducted in accordance with the applicable legal requirements, including the procedures prescribed under Article 135 of the Labour Law.

The employer should clearly communicate this requirement as part of the recruitment and employment process and ensure that all information and results obtained through the testing are kept strictly confidential. Accordingly, an employer may make a satisfactory drug test a condition for entering into an employment contract, provided that the requirement is applied lawfully and consistently and does not conflict with the statutory protections applicable to employees.

Refusal to Undergo Testing

Where an employee is requested to undergo drug testing under Article 135 of the Labour Law, the employee is required to undergo the test in accordance with the statutory requirements. However, Article 135 does not provide that refusal to undergo testing, by itself, automatically constitutes grounds for dismissal.

A different position applies to employees falling within the scope of Law No. 73 of 2021. Under Article 5, deliberate refusal to undergo testing during employment, or deliberate evasion of the test without an acceptable excuse, constitutes a ground for termination. The Executive Regulations similarly address failure to attend the test, leaving the workplace to avoid testing, and deliberate tampering with the sample.

For ordinary private-sector employees outside the scope of Law No. 73, an unjustified refusal may be addressed under the employer’s approved disciplinary framework, provided that the applicable work regulations require employees to cooperate with drug testing and the employer follows the prescribed investigation and disciplinary procedures. Refusal should not, however, be treated automatically as a ground for dismissal unless the statutory requirements for termination are otherwise satisfied.

Grounds for Dismissal

Under Article 148(6) of the Labour Law, an employee may be dismissed where it is established that, during working hours, the employee was in a state of clear intoxication or was affected by a narcotic substance. The focus is therefore on the employee’s condition while at work, rather than simply on whether the employee has previously consumed drugs.

A positive drug test, by itself, does not necessarily establish that the employee was intoxicated or affected during working hours. This was confirmed by the Court of Cassation in Appeal No. 4085 of Judicial Year 93 (Labour), where the employee tested positive for tramadol following a periodic test, but there was no evidence that the employee was intoxicated or affected while performing their duties. The Court therefore found that the statutory requirements for dismissal had not been satisfied.

This should be distinguished from the regime under Law No. 73 of 2021. For employees covered by that law, a confirmed positive drug test following the prescribed testing and confirmatory procedures may result in termination by operation of law, without requiring proof that the employee was intoxicated or affected at work.

Accordingly, for ordinary private-sector employers, drug consumption and workplace intoxication should not be treated as the same offence. Where an employee is established to have been intoxicated or affected by a narcotic substance during working hours, dismissal may be justified under Article 148(6). Where an employee merely returns a positive drug test but there is no evidence of intoxication or impairment at work, the employer should not automatically treat the result as establishing the statutory ground for dismissal. Instead, the employer must follow the procedure applicable to confirmed positive results under Article 135, including referral to the competent labour court, while any additional disciplinary consequences should be assessed in accordance with the Labour Law and the employer’s approved internal regulations.

Internal Drug-Testing Policies

A private-sector employer may regulate drug testing through its internal work regulations, provided that the policy complies with the Labour Law. Article 137 of the Labour Law requires employers with ten or more employees to establish regulations governing workplace violations and the applicable disciplinary sanctions.

Accordingly, an employer may include provisions addressing the circumstances in which drug testing may be requested, requiring employees to cooperate with the testing process, and setting out the procedures to be followed where a test is positive or an employee refuses or evades testing. Any testing must be conducted in accordance with the requirements and safeguards prescribed under Article 135 of the Labour Law.

However, an internal policy cannot override the statutory requirements for dismissal or create a new ground for termination. In particular, an employer should not provide that every positive drug test automatically results in termination where the employee has not been intoxicated or affected during working hours. The policy should instead distinguish between a positive test, refusal or evasion of testing, repeated violations, and actual intoxication or impairment at work, while ensuring that any disciplinary consequences remain consistent with the Labour Law.

This distinction is particularly relevant to ECC 4085/2025, where the employer sought to rely on its internal policy to support dismissal following a positive drug test. The Court nevertheless found that the statutory requirements for dismissal had not been met.

Disciplinary Sanctions

Where an employee tests positive for drugs but there is no evidence that the employee was intoxicated or affected during working hours, the employer should distinguish between the confirmed positive test and the separate statutory ground of intoxication or impairment at work. A confirmed positive result must be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Article 135 of the Labour Law, including referral to the competent labour court for adjudication.

Article 139 of the Labour Law sets out the disciplinary sanctions available to employers, including a written warning, deductions from wages within the limits permitted by law, postponement or partial deprivation of the annual increment, postponement of promotion, reduction of the basic wage in the circumstances permitted by law, reduction to the immediately lower position without reducing the wage, and dismissal in accordance with the Labour Law. Any disciplinary sanction must be imposed in accordance with the applicable procedures and the employer’s approved internal work regulations.

Employers may therefore establish a clear and proportionate disciplinary framework addressing conduct associated with drug testing, such as unjustified refusal or evasion of testing, subject to the requirements of the Labour Law. However, the internal policy should not purport to impose automatic dismissal or a predetermined sanction merely because an employee has returned a positive drug test where the statutory requirements for dismissal have not been satisfied.

The key point is that a positive drug test should not automatically be treated as equivalent to being intoxicated or affected at work. The distinction is particularly important in light of the Court of Cassation’s reasoning in ECC 4085/2025, where the Court found that a positive test for tramadol, without evidence that the employee was intoxicated or affected while performing their duties, did not satisfy the statutory requirements for dismissal.

Risks of Overly Broad Policies

The drafting of a drug-testing policy is particularly important because the employer’s own disciplinary rules may affect the sanctions it can subsequently impose. In ECC 4085/2025, the employer’s regulations prescribed a specific sanction for the relevant drug-related violation, consisting of a deduction of between 10 and 30 days’ wages. The Court took this provision into account when rejecting the employer’s claim for dismissal.

Employers should therefore avoid wording that prescribes a fixed sanction for every positive drug test. If the policy provides for a specific disciplinary sanction for conduct covered by the policy, the employer may face difficulties in subsequently seeking a more severe sanction for the same conduct, particularly where the employee was not intoxicated or affected during working hours.

A more practical approach would be to adopt a clear and proportionate framework that distinguishes between a confirmed positive test, refusal or evasion of testing, tampering with a sample, repeated breaches of applicable testing requirements, and actual intoxication or impairment at work. The policy should also preserve the employer’s ability to take the action permitted by law in each case, without purporting to create an automatic ground for dismissal that is not recognised by the Labour Law.

Practical Recommendations for Employers

Employers should ensure that their drug-testing policies clearly distinguish between drug use, a positive test result, and intoxication or impairment at work, as these circumstances do not necessarily carry the same legal consequences under Egyptian law.

A well-drafted policy should set out the circumstances and procedures for requesting drug testing in accordance with Article 135 of the Labour Law, require employees to cooperate with the testing process, and reflect the statutory requirements for re-examination, confirmatory testing and confidentiality. The policy should also require the employer to follow the applicable procedures before imposing any disciplinary sanction or taking further action.

The policy should distinguish between a confirmed positive test, refusal or evasion of testing, tampering with a sample, and actual intoxication or impairment at work. It should also preserve the employer’s right to take appropriate action where an employee is proven to be intoxicated or affected by drugs during working hours, as contemplated by Article 148(6).

Employers should ensure that any disciplinary sanctions provided in their internal regulations are consistent with Article 139 of the Labour Law and do not prescribe a fixed or disproportionate penalty that could restrict the employer’s ability to take a different course of action where permitted by law. This is particularly relevant in light of the Court of Cassation’s reasoning in ECC 4085/2025.

Finally, employers should ensure that drug-testing policies protect the confidentiality of employees’ health information and clearly identify the procedures to be followed following a positive result, including the statutory referral process under Article 135.

Conclusion

The Court of Cassation’s decision in ECC 4085/2025 confirms that, for ordinary private-sector employees, a positive drug test does not automatically justify termination. The critical distinction is whether the employee was intoxicated or affected by drugs during working hours.

Employers may require drug testing, including as a condition of employment for prospective employees, provided that the applicable legal requirements and confidentiality obligations are observed. Internal policies may also regulate testing and provide for appropriate disciplinary measures, but cannot create new statutory grounds for dismissal or make termination automatic following a positive test.

Where an employee is proven to be intoxicated or affected during working hours, however, dismissal may be justified under Article 148(6). Employers should therefore ensure that their policies clearly distinguish between positive test results, refusal to undergo testing, and actual intoxication or impairment at work.

Frequently Asked Questions

Add Andersen in Egypt to Google Preferred Sources

Make us your preferred source to ensure you always get accurate information. Access our peer-reviewed, highly reputable, and unique research directly through Google.

Add

To find out more, please fill out the form or email us at: info@eg.Andersen.com

Contact Us