Pubdate: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 Source: Fort McMurray Today (CN AB) Copyright: 2008 Fort McMurray Today Contact: http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1012 Author: Carol Christian Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing) PLANT DRUG TESTING UPHELD An oilsands lobby group is relieved to see common sense prevail in the Alberta Court of Appeals' recent decision to put the safety of many above the recreational drug use of one. In a decision dated Dec. 28, the Court of Appeal overturned a lower court's ruling, upholding corporate drug testing policies. The court ruled John Chiasson had not been discriminated against when fired from his position at Syncrude Canada in 2002 after testing positive for marijuana in his pre-employment drug test. He had been contracted by Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR). "We are encouraged to see logic prevail in this situation where safety of the many is seen as paramount to the rights of the individual," said Brian Maynard, vice-president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), this morning. In rendering its decision, the trio of appeal judges wrote "Extending human rights protections to situations resulting in placing the lives of others at risk flies in the face of logic." In its decision, the court also pointed out information about drug testing and subsequent firings for positive tests were clearly stated in KBR's hiring policy. "We are pleased with Alberta Court of Appeal's decision in the John Chiasson case," said Heather L. Browne, KBR spokeswoman in an e-mail this morning. "KBR is a leader in workplace safety and maintaining that commitment is the company's top priority. The court's ruling upholds that commitment and we look forward to continuing our work in that regard." While CAPP recognizes the need to accommodate legitimate human rights issues, there remains the possibility this case could be further appealed. Industry has more clarity now than it had before with the drug testing issue. "I think you'll see industry reacting in accordance with this current decision," added Maynard. "(We're) very encouraged to see a step in the right direction." This type of law "is evolving and we're watching very closely. Obviously we will review this ruling with great interest," said Alain Moore, Syncrude spokesman. Syncrude was one of a number of companies that had some type of intervenor status during the appeal hearing in October 2007. After Chiasson was fired, hecomplained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission. It ruled he was not discriminated against. In 2006, Justice Sheilah Martin of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench overturned that decision, ruling Chiasson should have been treated the same as someone with a drug addiction which is considered a disability under human-rights case law. During its review of the case, the appeals court noted that the human rights panel decision finding Chiasson was employed in a safety sensitive position at a hazardous work site because there was no perceived disability. The evident logic was if KBR had perceived a disability, Chiasson would not have been assigned that type of work. While the lower court had ruled he should have been treated as someone with an addiction, it was determined Chiasson was not a drug addict given the evidence, and his own admission he was only a recreational pot smoker, according to court documents. Also, his termination was not based on the perception by any KBR employees that he was a drug addict. Those were findings of fact made by the human rights panel, and as such are reviewable on a standard of patent unreasonableness. "It's one of the biggest issues for the industry," noted Maynard. "We take safety very, very seriously, whether it's the safety of our employees or safety of the communities in which we operate. All of which can be potentially exposed if you have someone who is suffering from the effects of drugs or alcohol. To us, it is a little bit illogical that you would put people's lives at risk. Anything that .. improves safety ... is a step in the right direction." While drug and alcohol use continue to be priorities in industry safety, CAPP and its members continue work on other safety issues such as safe driving practices, cellphone use while working and fatigue. The research is fairly clear on cellphone usage, said Maynard: it is a major distraction and an unsafe practice. He added many member companies already have cellphone policies in place, prohibiting their use during work. That also comes into play for drivers, whether it's driving a heavy hauler or a small personal use vehicles. CAPP is also looking at best practices around fatigue management that calls for an education program with employees and supervisors to recognize early symptoms. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom