A Saskatchewan utility was ordered to pay damages to employees subjected to drug tests after workplace accidents. Testing without some suspicion of impairment was unjustified, a labour arbitrator ruled..“The employer did not require the grievors to submit to alcohol and drug tests because it had a reasonable suspicion any of them might have consumed alcohol or drugs,” wrote Dennis Ball, arbitrator in the case..“Instead the employer required the grievors to submit to the tests so they would be more aware of safety policies.”.According to Blacklock's Reporter, the ruling came in the case of five employees of SaskEnergy Inc., a natural gas distributor. Arbitrator Ball ordered the utility to pay the workers damages between $1,500 and $2,000 each. The costs totaled $8,000..“Management may require employees to submit to drug and alcohol testing to protect legitimate safety concerns of everyone in the workplace,” wrote Ball. However workers had a “right to privacy and personal integrity,” he added. “These two interests must be balanced.”.In one 2019 accident near Moose Jaw, a work crew punctured a gas line incorrectly marked by site inspectors. There were no injuries and all the workers passed subsequent Breathalyzer and urine tests..In a separate 2020 incident on White Bear First Nation, a backhoe operator accidentally damaged a gas line. There were no injuries and the operator passed his drug and alcohol tests..None of the employees in the two accidents were disciplined..Both the company and Unifor Local 649 of Regina agreed the workers were “involved in a significant work-related incident,” a requirement of SaskEnergy’s 2018 Drug And Alcohol Policy. Union lawyers successfully argued the accidents themselves did not justify testing unless supervisors had reason to suspect impairment was a factor..“I conclude the employer had no discernible reason to inquire into whether any of (the workers) had consumed alcohol or drugs to fully understand why the accident had occurred,” wrote Arbitrator Ball. None of the employees “demonstrated such abnormal conduct or erratic behaviour” that managers could reasonably suspect they had been drinking or smoking marijuana..The Supreme Court in a landmark 2013 ruling Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union Local 30 v. Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. struck down random Breathalyzer tests as an invasion of workers’ privacy. Judges ruled a Saint John pulp mill had no justification for the practice and that random testing could only occur with cause or consent..“This is a labour issue with clear precedents and a history of respectful recognition of the ability of collective bargaining to responsibly address the safety concerns of the workplace and the public,” wrote the court..Employers’ groups tried and failed to have Parliament endorse random testing when it legalized recreational marijuana in 2018..“The Government of Canada has failed to address the impact of recreational marijuana on the workplace,” Derrick Hynes, executive director of Federally Regulated Employers-Transportation & Communication, testified at a 2018 hearing of the Senate social affairs committee..“This is a serious oversight with potentially catastrophic consequences.”
