Pubdate: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 Source: Business Edge (Canada) Copyright: 2005 Business Edge Contact: http://www.businessedge.ca/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3917 Author: The Canadian Press Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Marijuana - Canada) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing) MINING INDUSTRY TO WEIGH IN ON COURT'S DRUG RULING 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 U.S.-based construction firm. An Alberta justice ruled last June that Kellogg Brown & Root Company (KBR) 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 on Oct. 11. The Alberta Court of Appeal has now granted intervener status in the case to Syn-crude 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 worksites 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. "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. 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 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, considered a disability in human rights case law. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake