Drugs & Alcohol
Supreme Court of Canada to hear union's appeal of case concerning random alcohol testing in workplace
In a decision issued on March 20, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada announced that it would hear the appeal of a case involving an employer's right to conduct random alcohol testing in the workplace
Some key facts concerning the case: read more »
Appeal Court: Syncrude not "employer" under human rights legislation of contractor who failed drug test
In Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc. v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, Director), 2011 ABCA 3, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that Syncrude was not the "employer", within the meaning of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, of a contractor who failed a drug test.
The contractor was employed by another company, Lockerbie & Hole Industrial, that was providing services to Syncrude.
Notably, the Alberta Court of Appeal set out the following tests for determining this issue:
In summary, a contextual approach is required to decide whether a particular relationship qualifies as "employment" under the Act. A number of factors must be taken into consideration including: read more »
New Brunswick court quashes arbitrators' ruling that random alcohol testing policy at mill was unreasonable
On judicial review. the New Brunswick Queens Bench court has quashed an arbitration board's ruling concerning the reasonableness of a worklace random alcohol testing policy.
In a decision issued November 16, 2009, the majority of the arbitration board had ruled that the policy was not reasonable and thus not enforceable.
The court's decision - which was issued on September 20, 2010 - has not yet been posted to publically accessible database.
However, Toronto lawyer Dan Michaluk has been able to get his hands on the decision and has posted it on his "All About Information" blog:
Top 10 Canadian Cases on Workplace Privacy in Unionized Employment
Lancaster House presented an audio-conference last Thursday (May 13, 2010) on the "Top 10 Cases on Workplace Privacy in the Unionized Workplace". The cases covered - there were more than 10 - were: read more »
Employee’s refusal to extend Return to Work Agreement, acknowledge alcohol dependency, not just cause
In Taylor v. New Westminster (City) (Vancouver Registry S084283, August 19, 2009), the court found that the employer did not have just cause to dismiss an employee who refused to sign an extension to a Return to Work Agreement that required him to acknowledge that he had an alcohol dependency.
Background
At the time of his dismissal, the employee was 54 years old, had 16 years of service and earned a salary of approximately $90,000 per annum. He was Manager of Fleet Services, a safety sensitive position in that he supervised a team of mechanics who performed maintenance and repair work on the employer's various vehicles, including those for the fire and police departments.
Until February 2007, the employee had "an excellent work history" and the employer had "no concerns about his safety in the workplace" (para. 9).
The Incident read more »
Employee’s treatment for drug addiction/fragile health factored into calculation of reasonable notice period
In Pereira v. The Business Depot Ltd., 2009 BCSC 1178, the court factored in the employee's recent release from a drug addiction treatment centre, and his vulnerable state of health generally, in determining the reasonable notice period.
Background
The employee started working at Staples in 1997, after being recruited from another company. He was eventually promoted to general manager of the Nanaimo location.
Prior to June 2003, he was regarded as a good performer. However, starting at this time his professional conduct took a dramatic turn, as was repeatedly late for work, sometimes would not show up at all or would leave mid day for extended periods. The employee eventually advised his district manager that he was depressed, fatigued and very unwell. read more »
The "Addictions in the Workplace" seminar
I attended a seminar today on "Addictions in the Workplace" that was put on by the law firm Fasken Martineau. Faskens' labour and employment lawyer Patricia Janzen presented along with Dr. Ray Baker, an addictions specialist who has a company called HealthQuest.
The seminar was one in a series that Faskens is offering to its clients. They are aimed primarily at human resource professionals, but I wanted to hear Dr. Baker speak and obtain a better sense of the services he offers.
As Ms. Janzen noted in the seminar, the law relating to how employers in BC must deal with addicted employees is not entirely clear, given the decisions by the BC Court of Appeal in: read more »
