Pubdate: Sat, 27 Jul 2013
Source: Edmonton Journal (CN AB)
Copyright: 2013 The Edmonton Journal
Contact: 
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/letters/letters-to-the-editor.html
Website: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/134
Author: Derek Sankey

DRUGS, ALCOHOL TEST EMPLOYER POLICIES

Oilpatch Executives Look to Strike Balance Between Safety, Privacy Rights

In the heart of Alberta's oilpatch, at remote work camps across the 
province, one of the worst kept secrets is that a general problem 
exists with the use of alcohol and drugs between or even during shifts.

It's an issue that oil and gas companies have been trying for years 
to get a handle on to ensure the safe operations of their facilities 
and the safety of their workers.

The issue of random alcohol and drug testing has come into the 
spotlight in recent months with two highprofile cases and it's a 
subject that has many employers wondering if their policies are 
legal, effective and will reduce accidents.

"There's a balancing act between safety on one hand and employees' 
rights to privacy and human rights issues on the other hand," says 
Duncan Marsden, head of the employment group at Borden Ladner Gervais 
LLP's Calgary office.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld an arbitration 
board's ruling that Irving Pulp and Paper Ltd.'s random alcohol 
testing policy was not justified when its union brought a grievance 
following a negative test for one of its workers.

In the 22 months that the policy was in effect, not a single employee 
tested positive. In the 15 years prior to the policy, there were only 
eight alcohol related incidents recorded.

Suncor Energy Inc., meanwhile, is awaiting an arbitration board's 
ruling on whether taking part in Alberta's drug and alcohol risk 
reduction prevention program (DARRPP) meets the legal litmus test.

Whatever the ruling, it's sure to be appealed, says Marsden.

"The difficulty you have is that the tools the employers are using 
are really very crude because what the employer is trying to get at 
is whether the employee is impaired or safely able to operate heavy 
equipment, for example," he says.

Confusing the issue is other ways an employee can be impaired. Sleep 
apnea or sleep deprivation, stress and other lifestyle factors - all 
of which can impair a person as much if not more than a person who 
smokes marijuana on a Friday night and returns to work without any 
impairment on Monday morning, yet tests positive.

"The (drug and alcohol) tests don't achieve the objective - certainly 
in relation to drugs - as to whether or not (the employee) is 
impaired," Marsden says.

John Balogh, vice-president of operations for health, safety and risk 
management firm SDS Consulting Inc. in Calgary, says the issue "gets 
a bit touchy" in safety-sensitive positions where there is typically 
more governance around the issue. The focus on drug and alcohol 
testing tends to increase whenever oilpatch activity - and hiring - increases.

"I suspect it's part of the cyclical nature of the business," Balogh 
says. "When there's a lot of activity, there's obviously a lot of 
testing that takes place and a lot of failures, which brings a lot of 
pressure on employers."

In the Irving decision, the courts noted "reasonable cause testing" 
was justified, meaning when there are grounds to suspect an employee 
is drunk or impaired. It also commented that random testing is 
justified when a "general problem of substance abuse" has been 
identified in the workplace through managers witnessing the problem.

Balogh says most human resource departments are trying to understand 
how to approach the sticky issue with varying degrees of success. 
"But, at the same time, there's a lot of murkiness around it in terms 
of who's right and who's wrong," he adds. "It's not a perfect system."

In its 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court's dissenting judges argued that 
to need evidence of a drug or alcohol problem in the workplace before 
a company can implement random testing is "patently absurd" and 
potentially dangerous.

Balogh says it's difficult enough as it is with current labour 
shortages to staff for any given position in the oil and gas 
industry, so the issues of impairment and random drug and alcohol 
testing only complicate things further.

"It's an imperfect gatekeeper to checking for whether or not people 
are incapacitated to work," he says.

Marsden, meanwhile, anticipates oilpatch executives and HR 
departments will continue to struggle with finding the right balance.

"There's definite uncertainty among employers," Marsden says.

"A lot of people, particularly in Alberta, are waiting to see what 
the arbitration board says in relation to Suncor before they take any 
more definite steps."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom