RIGHTS AGENCY STUDIES BROKERAGE'S DRUG TESTS

U.S.-Based Firm's Pre-Employment Screens Criticized

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is considering launching an
investigation into a brokerage firm that requires pre-employment drug tests.

Francois Larsen, spokesman for the commission, said it has the "legal
authority to initiate an investigation" into the drug-testing policy of
Edward Jones, a U.S.-based firm with offices across Canada.

"We are aware of this situation because it's in the public domain, and we
are considering our options."

Edward Jones, a Missouri-based company, imported its zero-tolerance drug
policy into Canada in 1994, when it opened its first office. It employs
about 250 financial advisors in Canada and 8,000 in the United States and
Britain.

Edward Jones requires applicants to "consent to a pre-employment drug
screen in accordance with the firm's current drug testing policy."

Workplace drug and alcohol testing is common in the United States, but
Canadian courts have severely restricted their use, including
pre-employment drug tests in the financial sector.

Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association,
said the human rights commission has a duty to probe the drug policy at
Edward Jones's Canadian branch, based in Mississauga, Ont.

"An investigation ought to proceed on its own hook. It doesn't have to wait
for a complaint. Once these things are drawn to the commission's attention,
the commission owes it to the code to address these things, and not
knowingly allow these things to continue."

An Ontario man who is considering applying to the firm is furious about the
requirement but said it should not be up to him to hire a lawyer to contest
the policy.

"As a private citizen, I shouldn't need to rely on my own devices to get a
law obeyed and to protect my rights. That should be the job of the
government and the commission," said the man, who did not want to be
identified.

Ontario Human Rights Commission policy states that drug testing is
prohibited as part of the applicant-screening process.

It is only justified if the employer demonstrates that pre-employment
testing provides an effective assessment of the applicant, and should not
be directed toward simply identifying the presence of drugs or alcohol in
the body.

The human rights code identifies drug and alcohol addiction as a
disability. Discrimination on that basis is illegal, and the employee or
applicant must be accommodated.

Edward Jones employees said applicants who fail the mandatory drug test are
not hired.

"If you don't pass the drug test, you don't get hired," said a company
official in Missouri.

Todd McIntyre, an Edward Jones broker in Edmonton, said the same principle
applies in Canada if an applicant fails the drug test.

"They've been fired. They were pretty devastated by it. That's Edward
Jones. They're a great firm. I love them, but they're very conservative,"
he said.

Mr. McIntyre added he does not object to this tough-love approach. "I'm not
against it at all. That's simply because my feeling on this is similar to
theirs. If that's the process they want to use, that's fine with me."

Edward Jones officials in Canada declined comment.

In July, 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared alcohol and drug
testing by companies to be a violation of the province's human rights code.

The court said a Breathalyzer is permissible for people in high-risk jobs
- -- such as oil refinery workers, pilots and train engineers -- because it
determines whether someone is impaired at the moment the test is
administered, the judges said.

However, because drug testing only measures past use, not present, future
or likely impairment on the job, the court ruled the defendant, Imperial
Oil, could not justify pre-employment testing or random drug testing for
employees. Imperial Oil suspended its screening test.

In 1998, the federal court ruled an eight-year-old drug-testing policy at
the Toronto-Dominion Bank to screen newly hired employees was
discriminatory. The bank dropped its pre-employment drug test.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is reviewing its own drug testing
policy. Recent court decisions "have put into question whether drug
testing, including pre-employment and random testing, can ever be
justified," the commission said in a consultation paper.

The current policy states that drug testing, including pre-employment
screens, cannot be justified for positions where safety is not an issue
because drugs tests do not measure the level of impairment arising from
drug use and therefore cannot be used to judge the ability of an individual
to perform the job.

In areas where testing is justified because the job is safety-sensitive,
employees who test positive must be accommodated.