Pubdate: Sat, 03 Aug 2013
Source: Regina Leader-Post (CN SN)
Copyright: 2013 The Leader-Post Ltd.
Website: http://www.leaderpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/361
Author: Derek Sankey
Page: B6

RANDOM DRUG TESTS A BIG ISSUE

Balancing safety versus privacy

In the heart of Alberta's oilpatch, at remote work camps across the
province, one of the worst kept secrets is 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 operation 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 high-profile 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 a worker.

In the 22 months the policy was in effect, not a single employee
tested positive. In the 15 years prior, 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 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 can all
impair a person as much, if not more, than a person who smokes
marijuana on Friday night, returns to work unimpaired Monday and 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.

In the Irving decision, the courts noted "reasonable cause testing"
was justified, 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.

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.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt