Canadian Employment Law Today

impact the target's ability to do his job or be employed without the threat of discrimina- tion or harassment? If the answer to either question is 'yes,' your organization could be exposed to major employment law risk in the form of human rights complaints, pen - alties and unwanted government scrutiny. In some Canadian jurisdictions, policing the behaviour of a non-employee is already within the scope of employers' obligations to ensure a safe, inclusive workplace, such as the duty of Ontario employers to protect em - ployees from harassment by non-employees. is ruling adds a new layer of complexity to the already-onerous process of managing ef- fective and productive workplace relations. Employers are wise to increase the scrutiny not only of the third-party contractors and service providers they engage, but also those companies' individual employees. is is particularly important for organizations that have a small core staff but rely on outsourced labour to deliver their products or services. Going forward, organizations will need to ensure that partner vendors are fully briefed on their workplace policies and procedures, particularly those pertaining to discrimina - tion and harassment. ey could (and likely should) go as far as providing training ses- sions for any individuals who might provide services in their workplace, or interact with their employees. e consequences of vio- lating those policies should be clear, includ- ing the severing of business ties with the service provider. Individual employees of the third-party organization should be vet- ted in much the same way as a prospective employee. Does the individual reflect your organization's values, approach to business and commitment to an inclusive workplace? If not, the onus is on your HR or recruit - ment team to work with the service provider to find an alternate individual who can live up to those standards. is process can be streamlined and needn't be as detailed or as onerous as the recruitment strategy for your part- or full-time employees, of course. But it does need to be consistently applied to avoid legal headaches. e Supreme Court's ruling underscores the seriousness with which Canadian employers must treat workplace discrimination and ha - rassment. ose that hadn't taken it seriously now have another good reason to take action. Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2018 July 18, 2018 | Canadian Employment Law Today CREDIT: ANDREY_POPOV/SHUTTERSTOCK ABOUT THE AUTHOR Laura Williams Laura Williams is the founder and principal of Williams HR Law, a human resources law firm in Markham, Ont., serving employers exclusively. She can be reached at (905) 205-0496 or lwilliams@williamshrlaw.com. ist for up to 24 hours after use. •Persons consuming medical cannabis in the evening may sincerely believe that they are not impaired in their subsequent daily functioning; they can, however, ex- perience residual impairment beyond the shortest suggested time limits. e lack of awareness or real insight into one's func- tional impairment can be a consequence of cannabis use. In that context, a person may not experience 'euphoria' (as men- tioned in the Health Canada Guidance), yet still not function, respond or react normally while impaired by cannabis use. •A general practicing physician is not in a position to adequately determine, simply grounded on visual inspection of the pa- tient in a clinic and a basic understanding of patient's work, the daily safety issues in a hazardous workplace. Specialized train- ing in workplace hazards is necessary to fully understand the interaction between cannabis impairment and appropriate work restrictions in a given fact situation. e arbitrator was satisfied that undue hardship from unacceptable increased safety risk would result to the employer if it put the worker to work with his authorized medical cannabis use. is is a very significant decision. ere are not many arbitration awards that ad- dress what can be appropriately consid- ered a "safety sensitive" position. Further, the award deals with the important issue relating to accommodation and medical cannabis in the context of a safety sensi- tive position. e arbitrator's recognition of residual impairment for up to 24 hours from medical cannabis use allowed a find- ing of undue hardship. See Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Employers' As- sociation and IBEW, Local 1620 (April 30, 2018), J. F. Roil, Q.C. (N.L. Arb.). Undue hardship « from MEDICAL on page 3

• Cover