NEW STANDARD FOR DRUG TESTS

In 1992, Imperial Oil Ltd. launched a tough new policy that required drug
tests for any job applicant and random breathalysers and urinalysis for
those in safety-sensitive jobs.

Anyone caught was fired.

Those rules were challenged in court, leading to a landmark decision of the
Ontario Court of Appeal two years ago. That ruling, which struck down much
of the Imperial Oil drug policy, is now the benchmark for human rights
officials, including those in Alberta.

So it's not surprising that the new policy on alcohol and drug testing
announced last week by the Canadian Human Rights Commission bears a close
resemblance to the Ontario ruling.

The Ontario court hit a wise balance between the need to root out impaired
employees and the need to respect individual rights.

No one wants drug and alcohol abusers left in jobs where they could cause
problems. We all remember the recent case of a boozy Calgary school bus
driver whose frightened young charges called 911 on their cellphone.
Employers' hands cannot be completely tied in this regard.

However, we are also increasingly aware that in an era of intrusive
technology, our privacy rights must be clearly set out and defended. Our
employer is not entitled to know about every aspect of our private lives,
only those aspects that impinge on our work performance.

As did the Ontario court, the Canadian commission distinguishes between
drug testing and alcohol testing. Alcohol testing reveals a current state
of impairment. Drug testing does not; it shows only past drug use, so is
less useful as a workplace test. For that reason, the commission bans all
random drug testing, but allows random alcohol testing for safety-sensitive
jobs.

It also bans drug and alcohol testing of job applicants. This is a practice
that some large employers, like Suncor, continue to do.

In general, the rules require employers to provide treatment for substance
abusers rather than fire them. However a loophole is provided that would
allow a company to unload such individuals in some cases -- such as an
alcoholic school bus driver, one would presume.

These rules will apply only to federally regulated businesses, like banks
and airlines. However, the Ontario case is the standard cited by the
Alberta Human Rights Commission as well.

Since the Alberta commission acts only on complaints, it has not forced
compliance to the new rules on Alberta firms.

Still, a national standard on drug testing of employees has emerged.
Employers should be looking for ways to comply with it.