Canadian Labour Reporter

CANADIAN LABOUR REPORTER 7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2014 Continued from page 1 Todd Korol (Reuters) A bid to implement random drug and alcohol testing at Suncor's energy plant (above) north of Fort McMurray, Alta., has been struck down. While the union called the policy an attack on privacy rights, the oil giant said testing is integral to safety concerns. Energy heavyweight pushes judicial review way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Last summer, a judge struck down the Saint John, N.B.-based kraft mill's introduction of random testing back in 2006, citing a lack of evidence that alcohol was a problem at the plant. The precedent-setting case was applied during the Suncor de- cision — and improperly so, argued Barbara Johnston, of Den- tons Canada LLP and counsel for the company. While safety and privacy were the two overlying themes in both cases, a context- ual analysis must be applied. Providing evidence of just a bar- gaining unit drug and alcohol problem, she explained, is a whole different ball game than proving an overall workplace problem — both of which exist at Suncor, she said. "But when you balance privacy against the safety risks, there's no question that (Suncor) has an obligation to ensure safe work environments," Johnston went on to say. "The safety interest is paramount in this case." Moreover, Suncor said it does — and intends to — take the privacy of its employees to heart. As part of its current testing standard, Suncor has compre- hensive measures to ensure the respectful testing and privacy of individuals is considered, Johnston said. Random testing is simply the next logical step in the evolution of safety. "Suncor has been on a safety journey for over 20 years as it re- lates to mitigating risk with alcohol and drugs," she added. "And over the last 20 years, they've introduced incremental measures, and none of those incremental measures have addressed or re- mediated the risk associated with alcohol and drugs. So, this is the next incremental step that they needed to take to address the known safety risks." There is a lesson to be learned for employers looking to implement random testing, said Bob Barnetson, a professor of labour relations at Athabasca University in northern Alberta. "It poses a significant invasion of privacy, and any testing needs to be balanced against the potential gains of testing," ex- plained Barnetson. "Where random testing falls down is the lack of evidence that it has any relationship to incidents or injuries — and I think that remains a challenge." As such, the case will signify to employers that they will need to make a bulletproof case if they wish to implement random testing policies, he added, citing the Irving case as a clear example. "The Supreme Court test talks about balancing interests. There needs to be a case made for random testing, and in this case, Suncor did not meet the standard," he said. "The company already has a fairly significant testing program in place — there was no evidence random testing would yield any significant gain." Stigma attached to drug and alcohol abuse could perhaps be a root cause to a lack of understanding on the matter, Barnetson went on to say. As such, evidence that drug use leads to work- place injuries has been hard to come by. "We all get caught up in the moral approbation around drug use that maybe we miss or assume things about drug use that aren't true," Barnetson added. Suncor has appealed the case.

• Cover