Pubdate: Sat, 23 Jun 2012
Source: Calgary Herald (CN AB)
Copyright: 2012 Canwest Publishing Inc.
Contact: http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/letters.html
Website: http://www.calgaryherald.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/66
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

DRUGS AND OIL

Random Testing Is Reasonable in a Dangerous Industry

In an industry with a workforce dominated by young males who work 
with heavy machinery and dangerous materials, the question should not 
be why the oilpatch is conducting random drug and alcohol testing, 
but why it has taken so long.

Three major oil companies - Suncor Energy, Total E&P Canada and 
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. - will begin random drug and alcohol 
screening this fall as part of a pilot project.

Labour groups and some experts are justifiably concerned about issues 
of privacy. The presence of drug residue can linger long after impairment.

Somebody who tests positive on Tuesday for some marijuana smoked on 
the weekend, therefore, might be quite capable of performing safely 
at a high capacity. Occasional or one-off users could mount a 
challenge if their jobs were to become at risk as a result, although 
there is conflicting legal precedence as to whether recreational 
users are protected under human rights law. Persons with disabilities 
who become drug dependent are subject to human rights protection, 
although the onus is on the employee to prove it.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) policy on random drug and 
alcohol testing is that it is discriminatory at first glance. 
However, the commission says testing can be done for safety-sensitive 
job positions and in cases where an employee reports for work in an 
"unfit state" or after a significant incident or accident.

With proper protocols and procedures, and with applicable human 
rights protections, random drug testing is not an invasive witch 
hunt, or even punitive. "In the limited circumstances where testing 
is justified, employees who test positive and are determined to be 
dependent on drugs or alcohol must be accommodated," the CHRC says. 
"In most cases, employees or applicants should be referred to a 
substance abuse professional to determine whether, in fact, they are 
drug or alcohol dependent. If they are dependent on alcohol or drugs, 
the employer should accommodate them by providing the necessary 
support to permit them to undergo treatment or a rehabilitation 
program. An employer may be justified in temporarily removing an 
employee who is an active user or has a recent history of substance 
abuse from a safety sensitive position."

As stated in an Alberta Human Rights Commission information sheet, 
"Workplace alcohol and drug tests do not violate human rights . . . 
It is not the testing that triggers the protection of human rights 
law. It is the treatment by the employer of employees who are 
dependent on drugs or alcohol."

In Alberta's oilpatch, the reality is that current preventive 
measures are not working. "despite companies implementing numerous 
safety measures to reduce alcohol and drug use risks at work sites, 
it continues to be a significant safety issue," the industry says.

Alcohol, marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine use can have tragic 
results in an industry that is inherently dangerous. Alcohol and drug 
testing in the oilpatch is, therefore, only reasonable.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom