AN INSULT TO THE REAL DISABLED

New Ban On Workplace Drug Testing Makes A Hash Of Common Sense

Martin Entrop was working at Imperial Oil's Sarnia plant in 1991 when the
company announced a new personnel policy: All employees in
"safety-sensitive" positions were required to disclose substance-abuse
problems.

When Mr. Entrop, who supervised the oil refining process, divulged that he
had once been an alcoholic, he was moved to a safer, though less desirable,
job. Mr. Entrop felt his reassignment was unjustified and filed a complaint
of discrimination.

Mr. Entrop was a longtime employee who had not had a drink in seven years.
Plainly, the company rushed to judgment, so Mr. Entrop soon got his job
back. Although his case was straightforward, it triggered a much broader
examination -- involving boards of inquiry and Ontario courts -- of alcohol
and drug screening in the workplace. The culmination of this legal activity
was a new directive this week from the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The policy, which covers all federally regulated industries, prohibits both
pre-employment drug testing and all random, on-the-job drug testing. Under
the Canadian Human Rights Act, drug abuse constitutes a disability, and the
act prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities.

The commission already had a policy on drug testing in the workplace, but
the new directive is even more restrictive on employers. Under the old
policy, companies could at least conduct random tests of employees in
safety-related jobs, such as truck drivers.

But even this is now prohibited. The commission argues that, besides being
discriminatory, testing is meaningless because drugs are slow to
metabolize. Drugs taken on the weekend may trigger a positive test Monday
morning, even though you are no longer stoned.

The policy also imposes new limits where alcohol is concerned. A job
applicant who admits he gets drunk a lot cannot be denied the job for that
reason, on the grounds, again, that he has a disability.

The philosophical idea behind the new directive seems to be, as a
commission spokeswoman put it, "What I do outside work hours does not have
an impact on what I do during work hours. That's a violation of my privacy
rights and human rights."

We reject this categorical assertion. Employers, when hiring or promoting,
should have the right to consider character, and this is often reflected in
how we live our personal lives.

Earlier this year, for example, an Ontario Labour Relations Board upheld
the firing of a high school teacher who was active in racist, white
supremacist organizations -- even though he insisted his activities were
done on his own time.

Alcoholism may be a disease, but there is also old-fashioned drunkenness.
Drug addiction is a medical problem, but the employee who keeps a hash pipe
in his desk drawer has a judgment problem. For the commission to pretend
otherwise and classify as disabled everyone who misuses drugs and alcohol
is insulting to epileptics, the blind and others who really do need the
protection of human rights law.

The commission concedes that alcohol and drugs impair the ability to do
one's job, but it notes that employees who suffer fatigue also can be
impaired and that employers don't adopt a "punitive approach" with them.
But there is something silly about the suggestion that, come the
performance review, an employee routinely incapacitated with hangovers
should be evaluated no differently from one who is tired from overwork.

In its desire to do good, the commission should not strangle employer
judgment -- or employee responsibility.