DRUG TESTING BENEFICIAL FOR COMPANIES WITH DANGEROUS WORK SITES

From a single phone interview, John Chiasson secured a lucrative job
on a Fort McMurray construction project.

There was only one catch: The offer was conditional on passing a drug
test. Chiasson had smoked marijuana five days before the test. He
figured it would have cleared his system. He was wrong.

Kellogg Brown & Root believed having a potentially impaired worker on
a dangerous work site created serious safety risks. Chiasson was fired.

In response, he filed a human rights complaint which was upheld by
the Human Rights Commission. It said Kellogg's drug policy was to
prevent cannabis addicts from being hired. This, it concluded,
discriminated on the basis of disability. Determined to fire
employees using drugs or alcohol on its dangerous construction sites,
Kellogg appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal viewed banning casual drug use by
employees in the same fashion as prohibiting drinking and driving. As
the court noted, just because someone drinks and drives a company
vehicle does not mean they are alcoholics and therefore protected by
human rights.

As a matter of public safety, if caught, they should lose their right
to operate a motor vehicle. Employees who use illicit drugs should
not be in the workplace performing hazardous tasks. The court refused
to extend human rights protection when safety is at risk.

This is a major departure from earlier cases that found drug testing
acceptable only where the employer proves the employee tested was
impaired while performing his duties. Previously, general or random
drug testing was largely prohibited. The Alberta Court of Appeal
imposed no such requirement.

Drug testing is justified to accomplish the legitimate goal of a safe
workplace free of impairment.