Pubdate: Thu, 15 Apr 2004
Source: Red Deer Advocate (CN AB)
Copyright: 2004 Red Deer Advocate
Contact:  http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2492
Author: Harley Richards, Advocate Business Editor
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

SUBSTANCE ABUSE TESTING DEBATED OVER WORKER RIGHTS

It's not only bulked-up athletes and wobbly motorists who are being
subjected to drug and alcohol testing.

A growing number of businesses - including many in the oilpatch - are
requiring employees to prove they're clean and sober. But such
practices are not without danger, says an expert on workplace testing.

Speaking at the Petroleum Services Association of Canada's spring
conference, which was held in Red Deer Tuesday and Wednesday, Ed
Secondiak warned that drug and alcohol testing can be a balancing act.

The measures can improve safety and productivity, but employers must
remain mindful of their workers' rights.

Secondiak, who is general manager of Brooks-based ECS Safety Services,
said human rights legislation has been interpreted as providing
protection to individuals with a dependency on drugs or alcohol.

"That's where a lot of issues come in."

For instance, an employer may have to demonstrate that an absence of
drug or alcohol impairment is a "bona fide occupational requirement"
for a job. Safety would provide that justification in many cases, said
Secondiak.

Even then, an employee who fails a drug or alcohol test should not be
disciplined or fired until he has been sent to an assessment agency
like AADAC.

If it is determined the worker isn't suffering from a dependency
problem, said Secondiak, further measures could then be taken.
"There's no discrimination because they do not have a
dependency."

However, if the person is found to be suffering from a dependency, his
company likely has an obligation to provide help. Only after the
problem has been addressed can the employer discipline the worker.

As for testing procedures, Secondiak pointed out that urine analysis
is not an accurate way to detect alcohol impairment. He recommends
testing saliva or breath, with the latter preferred.

Secondiak added that someone with a blood-alcohol level of 0.04 is
considered to be medically impaired when it comes to operating
machinery, even though this is well below the legal limit for driving
a motor vehicle.

Consequently, company that allows an employee with a blood-alcohol
level of 0.04 to work could be liable if that worker suffers or causes
an injury.

Secondiak recommends anyone who tests at between 0.02 and 0.039 should
be suspended for 24 hours.

Drug tests, he pointed out, do not reveal the level of impairment.
They only show if the subject was above or below a specified standard.

If a company determines that a job applicant is abusing drugs or
alcohol, but hires that person anyway, it could also be liable if the
worker is later involved in an accident.

Secondiak said companies that do test for drug or alcohol use should
establish set policies and review these annually.

These should describe why testing is required, when it will be done
and the consequences of a failed test

Management and supervisory staff should be well trained, and if new
testing requirements are being implemented there should be plenty of
notice before they take effect.

Secondiak said there are a number of reasons to institute testing:
improved safety and productivity, treatment for abusers, deterring
clean and future employees from using drugs or alcohol on the job, and
protection of the company's image. These usually make the practice
worthwhile.

"Don't be afraid of testing," said Secondiak. "It is not illegal."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin