OHS Canada Magazine

Random drug, alcohol testing policy rejected

(Canadian OH&S News) -- A grievance arbitration board has found that a 2012 random drug and alcohol testing policy, in its present form, is unreasonable for workers at a Suncor Energy site in northern Alberta.

(Canadian OH&S News) — A grievance arbitration board has found that a 2012 random drug and alcohol testing policy, in its present form, is unreasonable for workers at a Suncor Energy site in northern Alberta.

The three-person arbitration board, consisting of chair Tom Hodges as well as employer and union nominees, released its ruling on March 18. Local 707A of Unifor (formerly the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union) had filed a grievance on behalf of members at Suncor’s Athabasca oilsands operations near Fort McMurray, after the company announced the unilateral implementation of the random testing policy in 2012, Unifor noted in a statement. In December of that year, the Court of Appeal of Alberta granted an injunction to block the implementation of the random policy until after the arbitration case was heard.

In the ruling, Hodges wrote that the imposition of a random alcohol policy was an unreasonable exercise of management rights. “We find that the 14 positive alcohol tests over a nine-year period in a workforce the size of this employer does not establish that there is a significant problem or legitimate safety risk,” Hodges wrote. As of July 2013, the union represented 3,383 workers, a number that had more than doubled in the past decade.

With respect to random drug testing, Hodges said that Suncor’s decision to use urine testing was confusing, considering that this type of test is easier to adulterate. “There are employees who know they are certain to fail urine tests and who are engaged in efforts to adulterate those tests,” he wrote. “In effect, the most serious of offenders are finding ways to beat the test. The 2012 policy would cause intrusions into the privacy of employees beyond what is reasonably necessary.”

Hodges summarized by noting that the 2012 policy had been proposed without any time limits for reviewing its effectiveness, was not targeted as narrowly as possible, did not use the least intrusive or more accurate testing measures available and did not contain provisions for communicating with employees about false positive results.


Roland Lefort, president of Unifor Local 707A, said that random testing is a violation of workers’ basic rights and that the union would continue to work with Suncor to ensure workplace safety through education and prevention, not invasive medical procedures.

“There is no evidence that random testing improves safety, which is why Unifor is committed to more reliable methods to keep our members safe on the job while respecting the dignity of our members,” added Jerry Dias, Unifor’s national president, in the union’s statement.

The random drug and alcohol policy is separate from Suncor’s pre-existing drug and alcohol policy, which allows for post-incident and reasonable cause testing. The appeal court ruling found that only six per cent of employees tested under this policy from the beginning of January 2009 until mid-June 2012 tested positive.

But Suncor spokesperson Sneh Seetal said that investigations into the seven workplace fatalities at the company’s oilsands operations concluded that three workers had been under the influence of either drugs or alcohol when they were killed. In the decision, Hodges pointed out that all three fatalities had involved contractor employees and not bargaining unit employees.

“We’re obligated to provide a safe work site for all our employees, contractors and visitors to the site,” Sneh said. “We’re doing what we feel is necessary to fulfill that commitment.”

The decision can be found at www.unifor.org/en/policy-grievance-707a.

Print this page



3 Comments » for Random drug, alcohol testing policy rejected
  1. Ron Clerk says:

    I am of the opinion, that the safety of many far outweighs the inconvenience of a few to have a drug test to determine if they are working safely in a “Safety Critical” position. However, the “do gooders” of our society don’t agree, and unfortunately more and more “social drug users”, not addicts, are getting positions of authority decision making. Oh, I apologize if I hurt anybody’s feelings by insinuating that as a social drug user you would not be making the best decisions concerning drug use on the job. Being faced with this reality, I suggest that in preference to random drug testing, industry consider having employees in safety critical positions, being subjected to random cognitive ability testing. The first couple tests establish the employees norm and thereafter can indicate cognitive impairment. Would that approach be feasable?

  2. Trish Ross says:

    First and foremost, Safety polices and processes focus on prevention. Knowing the statistics of social alcohol and drug use, it is prudent to perform random testing in order to know who is placing the workforce and company at risk and take proactive measures BEFORE someone is injured or killed. Yes, users are wise in how to “fix” their samples, but random = surprise testing with no chance for preparation. That’s the point.

    My stance is that urine samples are not enough to catch certain drugs that could be of major concern, yet employers don’t want to “inconvenience” their employees further or spend the additional money.

    Second, what of those contracts that require random drug testing? Is a company supposed to not seek out those clients because they cannot live up to the contract terms?

    Many times the person injured or killed is not the user, yet a user was ultimately responsible for what happened to them. It is quite possible that the user will not be discovered and tested due to the impossibility of proving where in the chain of events they caused the incident.

  3. bob g says:

    The problem with this is, someone who smokes a joint in the evening, then goes to work the next day is not intoxicated, yet the drug test registers positive. So you have workers being told indirectly what to do on the own time. Also, drugs like crack or crystal only stay in the body for a couple days, meaning workers who abuse harder substances are even less likely than someone who smokes pot to be fired. Any employer who does urine tests either doesn’t know this, or doesn’t care. If they don’t care, that indicates to me they feel like they own their workers in the off time, if they are setting rules that affect the workers private life. I would take legal action if I encountered this, so would anyone I know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *