Pubdate: Fri, 04 Apr 2014
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2014 The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Author: Gary Mason

OIL SANDS HAVEN'T HEARD THE LAST OF RANDOM TESTING

The oil sands have long had a reputation for being a tough place to
work. Employees, mostly male, are often bunked in work camps in the
middle of nowhere, away from friends and family for weeks at a time.

Tales of drug and alcohol abuse have abounded for years. An entire
mythology has been constructed around the belief that workers
routinely drink and take drugs on the job, then resume operating some
of the most dangerous equipment on the planet. But how real is that
image?

Canada's largest oil producer, Suncor Energy, believes the problem is
significant. In July, 2012, the company tried to introduce random drug
and alcohol testing at its operations north of Fort McMurray. Suncor's
ventures involve more than 13,000 employees, of whom 3,383 are
unionized. Not surprisingly, the policy was grieved. Last week, an
independent arbitration panel sided with the union. The company is
appealing.

The decision was interesting for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it
somewhat dispelled the myth that there is an out-of-control,
drugs-and-alcohol culture at oil-sands work sites. At the same time,
the ruling made clear this issue is not disappearing, and that while
Canada will likely never go the route of the United States, where
random testing is widespread, it could become more common here, as
employers find language and terms that satisfy courts and tribunals.

In this case, Suncor did not.

The company lost for a few reasons, not the least of which was that it
failed to demonstrate there was a significant problem at its
operations. Suncor said that in the past seven years, three employees
have been killed on the job who were later determined to have drugs or
alcohol in their system. One man jumped to his death, another choked
on his own vomit and a third had a truck fall on him. (Testing is
allowed for employees who have been in any safety-related incident on
the job.)

The company also had an RCMP official testify that between 2004 and
2013, there were 2,276 security incidents on the work sites. These
primarily involved the police searching lodgings and finding alcohol
and drugs, in some cases, but also finding the means to defeat
post-incident testing. These included clean urine samples, urine
testing kits and "Whizzinators" - products designed to deceitfully
beat drug tests. ("Whizzinators"? Who knew?)

But what did the post-incident testing find? Over a nine-year period,
there were just 14 positive tests for alcohol involving unionized
employees who had been involved in some kind of safety-related
incident on the job. Suncor said there were a total of 115 positive
tests among all its employees - the vast majority of whom are
non-unionized - for alcohol and drugs in its operations between
January, 2009, and December, 2012.

The panel heard that for several years, the number of safety-related
incidents on the job has been trending downward. Also, there was
persuasive testimony offered by experts pointing to the unreliability
of urine testing as a means of determining current drug and alcohol
impairment.

As we say, Suncor is not giving up. The Supreme Court of Canada
recently ruled in this area, rejecting a bid by Irving Pulp and Paper
to introduce random urine testing in some of its operations, in part
because the company failed to produce evidence that there was a
widespread problem that was compromising worker safety. But the high
court did not rule out indiscriminate testing as a matter of course.

In fact, it suggested there may be grounds for it under certain
circumstances and appropriate terms. Privacy rights aren't necessarily
absolute. What needs to be measured is the benefits that accrue from
random testing against the harm done to an employee's rights - it's a
high bar.

The Alberta panel, meantime, suggested measures that Suncor might have
adopted to make its proposed policy more acceptable, such as
introducing it as a pilot project, agreeing to randomly test far less
than 50 per cent of the work force and including guidelines to respect
employee dignity.

The panel made the right call based on the facts as presented. But we
haven't heard the last of this.  
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D