Termination for trigger, well being and security obligations and office incapacity lodging are a few of the most difficult employment legislation points Canadian employers have to navigate when managing their workplaces. A current case from Alberta, Quong v Lafarge Canada Inc., offers important insights for employers, particularly these working in safety-sensitive industries. Right here’s a breakdown of the important thing factors and how one can apply them to your office.
Background of the case
A protracted-term worker of a cement producer was terminated after testing constructive for THC, the energetic chemical in hashish, following a minor office accident. Regardless of the constructive take a look at, the employer didn’t instantly terminate the worker however as a substitute required him to bear a substance abuse evaluation and take part in a remedy program as a situation for returning to work. The worker refused, arguing that the corporate’s Drug and Alcohol Coverage was unreasonable and an invasion of his privateness.
The worker was terminated for trigger, and introduced a declare for wrongful dismissal, arguing amongst different issues, that the employer had failed to have interaction in enough progressive self-discipline previous to termination.
The employer argued that their actions have been affordable and per the corporate’s Drug and Alcohol Coverage, significantly given the worker’s position in a safety-sensitive place. The employer maintained that the coverage, together with post-incident drug testing, was important for sustaining a secure office.
Confronted with an worker who had a constructive drug take a look at, the courtroom discovered that the employer had no various however to insist on compliance with its Drug and Alcohol Coverage which the courtroom discovered to be affordable. Employers are required by legislation to take care of a secure office and the employer couldn’t settle for the worker’s place that he not be required to take part within the substance abuse program or be topic to random drug testing within the return to work interval.
Returning the worker to work on a safety-sensitive job website in any capability was not a viable choice. Additional, pursuant to human rights legislation, the employer had an obligation to accommodate staff with disabilities, together with substance use dysfunction. The worker’s refusal to bear a substance abuse evaluation as a part of the substance abuse program prevented the employer from assembly its human rights legislation obligations. The courtroom discovered that the worker’s willful refusal to abide by a coverage important to making sure a secure office was incompatible with continued employment. The worker’s refusal constituted a repudiation of his employment contract.
Worker drug testing in safety-sensitive positions
The courtroom reaffirmed that employers in industries involving bodily dangers (like manufacturing) have a professional curiosity in drug testing staff in safety-sensitive positions, particularly post-incident. The courtroom cited case legislation which has famous that lingering results of hashish may impair staff’ capacity to soundly function equipment, even when the consumption occurred exterior of labor hours. This precautionary precept underscores that security trumps private privateness in terms of office accidents and potential hazards.
Drug and alcohol coverage: Clear, constant, and enforceable
Employers ought to take notice that the employer’s Drug and Alcohol Coverage, on this case, was discovered to be affordable, well-publicized, and constantly enforced. This consistency performed a important position within the courtroom’s ruling that the coverage constituted an implied time period of the employment contract. It’s important for employers to make sure that their drug and alcohol insurance policies are:
- Clear: Workers ought to totally perceive the principles and penalties of violating the coverage.
- Constant: The coverage have to be utilized uniformly throughout the workforce to keep away from claims of unfair remedy.
- Security-focused: In safety-sensitive workplaces, employers are entitled to impose drug testing, together with random checks following constructive outcomes, to take care of a secure working setting.
Return-to-work agreements and random drug testing
On this case, the employer sought to impose a Final Likelihood/Return to Work Settlement on the worker, together with random drug testing for 2 years. The courtroom discovered that this was an affordable business follow. Employers ought to take into account adopting related protocols for workers returning to work after constructive drug checks, so long as the agreements are per the general drug coverage and proportionate to the character of the job.
Conclusion: Making certain office security and authorized compliance
This case serves as a reminder for employers to:
- Frequently evaluate and replace their drug and alcohol insurance policies.
- Guarantee staff in safety-sensitive positions perceive the implications of those insurance policies.
- Present clear paths for rehabilitation and return-to-work protocols following a constructive drug take a look at.
By sustaining complete insurance policies that steadiness security with worker rights, employers can safeguard their workplaces and scale back the danger of authorized disputes.
By Lexa Cutler
SpringLaw is a digital Canadian boutique legislation agency, practising solely within the areas of employment, labour and human rights legislation. We work with a variety of employers – from international firms with operations in Canada to native owner-operators and start-ups – advising on the wide selection of authorized points that come up out of the office, significantly workplaces within the tech and inventive house. We additionally present authorized and strategic recommendation to staff all through their employment journey. Weblog posts are written by Lisa Stam, Hilary Web page, Emily Siu, Danielle Murray, Lindsay Koruna, Jessyca Greenwood, Marnie Baizley, Matt Chapman, Evaleen Hellinga and Tiffany Thomas.