News (Media Awareness Project) - Canada: Firm Rules For Workplace Drug Testing |
Title: | Canada: Firm Rules For Workplace Drug Testing |
Published On: | 2007-05-06 |
Source: | Province, The (CN BC) |
Fetched On: | 2008-08-17 03:35:50 |
FIRM RULES FOR WORKPLACE DRUG TESTING
Not Like U.S. - Employers Face Court Cases If Lines Crossed
Employers' wars on drugs are being fought in the workplace and in the
courtroom.
U.S. employers are winning in both. Armed with the freedom to test for
drugs, employees can be fired and the courts will not interfere.
Canadian employers, meanwhile, have little artillery.
Imperial Oil's Nanticoke, Ont., refinery had an impressive, 15-year
history of being drug-free, established by randomly subjecting
employees to urinalysis.
That came to a halt in 2000 when Martin Entrop challenged the
company's drug-testing policy, which was struck down in court. While
urinalysis confirms the presence of drugs, it cannot pinpoint when the
drug was consumed. Nor can it reveal the level of impairment at the
time of testing. Therefore, it was unable to confirm the employee was
unfit to work.
In its search for a superior test, Imperial Oil discovered the buccal
test, which can reveal the absolute level of cannabis in the body at
the time of testing.
The company could now safely conclude that a positive test proved
impairment at the time of the test and that the employee posed a risk
to the public, the environment, fellow employees and
himself/herself.
Imperial Oil resumed drug testing in July 2003. Again, not a single
employee tested positive. The test seemed the perfect solution, until
last December, when the Canada Industrial Relations Board deemed it an
invasion of privacy. The labour board recommended employers
"supervise" employees.
The deterrent value of a strong drug policy remains valuable; certain
testing is permitted in safety-sensitive environments when there is
reasonable cause to undertake such tests and the tests are as
unobtrusive as possible.
For employees not in safety-sensitive positions, supervision can be
used. Monitoring the employee in public is permissible but not in
places where employees have an expectation of privacy. Surveillance of
an employee must be motivated by reasonable grounds and should be used
only as a last resort.
Not Like U.S. - Employers Face Court Cases If Lines Crossed
Employers' wars on drugs are being fought in the workplace and in the
courtroom.
U.S. employers are winning in both. Armed with the freedom to test for
drugs, employees can be fired and the courts will not interfere.
Canadian employers, meanwhile, have little artillery.
Imperial Oil's Nanticoke, Ont., refinery had an impressive, 15-year
history of being drug-free, established by randomly subjecting
employees to urinalysis.
That came to a halt in 2000 when Martin Entrop challenged the
company's drug-testing policy, which was struck down in court. While
urinalysis confirms the presence of drugs, it cannot pinpoint when the
drug was consumed. Nor can it reveal the level of impairment at the
time of testing. Therefore, it was unable to confirm the employee was
unfit to work.
In its search for a superior test, Imperial Oil discovered the buccal
test, which can reveal the absolute level of cannabis in the body at
the time of testing.
The company could now safely conclude that a positive test proved
impairment at the time of the test and that the employee posed a risk
to the public, the environment, fellow employees and
himself/herself.
Imperial Oil resumed drug testing in July 2003. Again, not a single
employee tested positive. The test seemed the perfect solution, until
last December, when the Canada Industrial Relations Board deemed it an
invasion of privacy. The labour board recommended employers
"supervise" employees.
The deterrent value of a strong drug policy remains valuable; certain
testing is permitted in safety-sensitive environments when there is
reasonable cause to undertake such tests and the tests are as
unobtrusive as possible.
For employees not in safety-sensitive positions, supervision can be
used. Monitoring the employee in public is permissible but not in
places where employees have an expectation of privacy. Surveillance of
an employee must be motivated by reasonable grounds and should be used
only as a last resort.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...