'ZERO-TOLERANCE' AT IMPERIAL OIL

Drug-testing policy riles refinery workers

TORONTO - Imperial Oil is still forcing a tough drug-testing policy on
employees across Canada despite a court ruling that the program is
discriminatory.

"It's disgusting that a company of this magnitude and class is doing this."
said Scott James, an operator at Imperial's refinery in Sarnia, Ont.

"The policy is a crock of beans."

Imperial says it can enforce the policy because the provincial court
decision it's appealing was unclear in it's order to the company.

The January ruling upheld a 1993 landmark decision by the Ontario Human
Rights Commission that found Imperial's policy relied on stereotypes about
people with drug or alcohol problems.

The policy, implemented in 1991, requires its 7,000 employees to reveal any
drug and alcohol problems, no matter how old. Failure to do so could lead
to firing.

While the zero-tolerance policy applies to all workers, those in less
supervised "safety-sensitive" jobs - about 700 people - are subject to even
harsher rules such as random testing for drug and alcohol use, said Barbara
Hejduk, an Imperial spokeswoman.

"People are upset," said David Dennis, an operator at Imperial's refinery
in Sarnia, Ont., where the initial human rights complaint originated in
1992. Some 350 employees there are subject to random testing.

"I find it embarrassing to urinate in a bottle. It9s demeaning," said
Dennis, who has been tested twice in seven weeks. "There doesn't seem to be
any rhyme or reason to the number of times you can e tested. I don9t drink
alcohol of any kind and I certainly don't do drugs. I never have. This is
why I find it personally offensive," said Dennis.

A computer program determines how often employees are tested but it's at
lest once a year, said Hejduk. It's not likely, but workers could be tested
every time they work a shift, she said.

Hejduk was aware employees are unhappy with the company's position, but
said, it's a stand Imperial must take to ensure safety.

"That is a big farce." said James. "We have more safety features built in
than you could imagine. I could not blow up this place if I wanted to."

Both he and Dennis agreed there's a need for a strict policy to maintain
standards, but objected to being tested without reason. "As soon as you
walk in the gates you have to prove you're innocent," said James, who
complained the testing area in not very private.

Marty Entrop, the employee who brought the initial complaint against the
company in 1992, said the battle ahead is less painful than what he and his
family have been through.

"We're not opening up old wounds any more," said the reformed alcoholic who
was forced to disclose his problem when the policy went into effect in
1991- seven years after his last drink.