Pubdate: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 Source: StarPhoenix, The (CN SN) Copyright: 2013 The StarPhoenix Contact: http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/letters.html Website: http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/400 Author: Derek Sankey Page: F13 RANDOM ALCOHOL, DRUG TESTS A BIG ISSUE 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 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 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 one of its workers. 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 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 Friday night, returns to work unimpaired Monday, and 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. 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. 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. "It's (random testing) an imperfect gatekeeper to checking for whether or not people are incapacitated to work," Balogh says. - --- MAP posted-by: Matt