INDUSTRY WINS COURT STANDING IN JOBSITE DRUG TESTING CASE

EDMONTON (CP)- More industry heavyweights will be heard in the
challenge of a court ruling on pre-employment drug testing involving
Alberta's human rights commission and a large American construction firm.

An Alberta justice ruled last June that Kellogg Brown & Root Company
discriminated against a man when it fired him from an oilsands
project near Fort McMurray after his drug test was positive for marijuana.

KBR's appeal of that ruling is to be heard Oct. 11. The Alberta Court
of Appeal has granted intervener status in the case to Syncrude
Canada Ltd., the Mining Association of British Columbia and the Coal
Association of Canada.

Michael McPhie, president of the mining association, said
pre-employment drug and alcohol testing helps make dangerous work
sites safer and is a policy used by many of the group's 60 member companies.

The Alberta case could have national repercussions if it stands, he
said Friday.

"This isn't a question of human rights. This is a question of
companies being responsible to both the worker who is being tested as
well his colleagues," McPhie said from Vancouver.

"We cannot in good conscience allow people that may be under the
influence of some type of substance to engage in activities that
could have very lethal consequences."

McPhie believes the challenge could go all the way to the Supreme
Court of Canada. The case began in 2002 when John Chiasson was hired
by KBR as a receiving inspector at Syncrude's oilsands plant. He was
required to pass a pre-employment drug test.

Nine days after he started work the company learned his urine was
positive for the active ingredient in marijuana. He admitted that he
had smoked pot five days before the test and was immediately fired
under the company's zero-tolerance policy.

Chiasson complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which
ruled he was not discriminated against.

Last year, Justice Sheilah Martin of the Alberta Court of Queen's
Bench overturned that decision, ruling that Chiasson should have been
treated the same as someone with a drug addiction, which is
considered a disability in human rights case law.

Martin said the company should scrap the drug tests or find a way to
help people who fail them. The human rights commission is to speak in
defence of Martin's ruling when the appeal is heard in Calgary, said
Audrey Dean, senior counsel for the commission.

"The commission will ask the court to consider the fact that
pre-employment testing does not show future impairment," Dean said.

"Arbitrary firing is not the solution. There needs to be a balance
between the human rights of the individual and between the needs of
the employer and protecting society if employees are in
safety-sensitive positions."

KBR officials were not available for comment.

During the court case last year officials with oilsands giant
Syncrude testified that the company's lost-time rate from accidents
has dropped, in part, because of pre-employment drug and alcohol
testing. It's a point the company wants to drive home again when the
appeal is heard, said Syncrude spokesman Alain Moore. "We are
balancing an industrial sites owners' obligation to protect the
safety and well-being of everyone on our site with the right of an
individual to consume drugs and alcohol," Moore said from Fort McMurray.