modelo canadiense de seguridad

8/8/2019 Modelo Canadiense de Seguridad

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/modelo-canadiense-de-seguridad 1/84

A best practice of theConstruction OwnersAssociation of Alberta

Alcohol and DrugGuidelines and Work Rule

Canadian Model

for Providing a

Safe Workplace

October 2005



ENDORSING ORGANIZATIONS

The Canadian Model for Providing a Safe Workplaceis endorsed by:



Canadian Model for Providing a Safe Workplace

A best practice o the

Construction Owners Association o Alberta

Alcohol and drug guidelines

Introduction G-1

Endorsements and acknowledgments G-2

Guiding principles G-3

Alcohol and drug guidelines G-3

1.0 Work standards G-3

2.0 Roles and responsibilities G-4

3.0 Education and awareness G-5

4.0 Available resources G-5

Alcohol and drug policy 1

1.0 Purposes o the alcohol and drug policy 1

2.0 The alcohol and drug policy is important 1

3.0 Alcohol and drug work rule 2

4.0 Implementation o the alcohol and drug work rule 3

4.1 Education 3

4.2 Sel-help 3

4.3 Possession o alcohol and drugs 4

4.4 Observation o employee conduct 4

4.5 Incidents and near misses 4

4.6 Random testing 5

4.7 Site access testing 54.8 Alcohol and drug testing 5

4.9 Alcohol and drug testing results 5

4.10 Assistance o a representative 6

5.0 Consequences or ailure to comply with the alcohol and drug work rule 7

5.1 Company responses to violations 7

5.2 Violation o 3.1(b) o the alcohol and drug work rule 7

5.3 Violation o 3.1(a), (c) or (d) o the alcohol and drug work rule 7

5.4 Owner responses to violations 7

5.5 Bargaining agent or labour provider responses to violations 8

6.0 Denitions 8Appendix A – Alcohol and drug testing procedures 10

Appendix B − Substance abuse expert 13

Independent legal opinion L-1

Independent medical opinion M-1

Frequently asked questions Q-1

Employers’ guide: Alcohol and drug awareness or employers E-1

Supervisors’ guide: Alcohol and drug awareness or supervisors S-1

Workers’ guide: Alcohol and drug awareness or workers W-1



G U I D E L I N E S

Alcohol and Drug Guidelines

G U I D E L I N E S




INTRODUCTION

The Canadian Model or Providing a SaeWorkplace (the Canadian Model) is a best-practice alcohol and drug policy that allstakeholders within the construction industryacross Canada can adopt and ollow. The purpose

o the Canadian Model is to ensure a saeworkplace or all workers by reducing the risksassociated with the use o alcohol and drugs.

Prior to the introduction o the Canadian Model,the construction industry had no standard policyor addressing the use o alcohol and drugs in theworkplace. While many parties in the industryhad implemented their own policies, many othershad none in place. At the same time, manycompanies who purchase construction serviceshad their own policies that had to be adhered

to, which oten diered rom what was in placeat the construction services company. This lacko standardization and commonality led toconusion, redundancy and discrepancies, whichmay have resulted in unair treatment.

In 1998, under the direction o the ConstructionOwners Association o Alberta (COAA), a groupo key stakeholders rom the constructionindustry came together to deal with thisproblem. Through extensive collaborativeeorts, the working group developed consistentalcohol and drug guidelines and a policy that

would standardize the approach, testing,application and rehabilitation o workers withrespect to the use o alcohol and drugs. InFebruary 1999, the rst version o the CanadianModel was completed and distributed amongthe construction industry stakeholders.

Recognizing that the development o aCanadian Model must take into account newinormation, technologies and trends that mayarise over time, the COAA determined thatperiodic reviews and modications would be

necessary to keep the Canadian Model currentand relevant. As a result, in the all o 2000,the working group reconvened and reviewedthe policy in light o the experience with theCanadian Model and the emerging law andpublic policy in this area. In May 2001, a secondversion o the Model was completed, with minoradjustments, and continued to be widely usedamong construction industry stakeholders.

The next step in the journey was in 2004 whena new committee was struck to re-examinethe Canadian Model and, with a goal to

urther improve saety in the workplace, makemodications as necessary. In particular, thecommittee examined new technologies andtools that had come available, and reviewedindustry and legislative trends, current scienticinormation relating to the use o alcohol

and drugs, and stakeholder eedback. Thecommittee’s work continued through 2005 andresulted in this newly revised version, eectiveOctober 2005.

The Canadian Model and correspondingimplementation package continue to be

available, ree o charge, to any constructioncompany and labour provider in Canada. Thekey stakeholders have committed to continuingtheir ongoing monitoring and review o theCanadian Model under the direction o theCOAA Saety Committee and in conjunctionwith the supporting industry groups. In keepingwith the goal o continually improving theCanadian Model in the journey to ensuring a saeworkplace, the Canadian Model will be urtherreviewed in the uture and enhanced as required.

This Canadian Model is part o an overallapproach to saety and is intended to be anintegral part o a saety or loss managementpolicy. It can also be used as a tool or dealingwith saety through perormance managementand education. The Canadian Model strives toestablish a minimum industry standard or a saeworkplace and recognizes that some companiesmay require even higher or alternative standardsbased on the specic nature o their operationsor with technological breakthroughs in testing.

Provisions or site access and random testing

are included in this Canadian Model or thosecompanies that wish to adopt these practicesbased on the specic needs o their business. Pre-employment testing, although not included in thisCanadian Model, should not be overlooked orthose companies that may require it based on thespecic nature o their operations.

An extensive review o point o collection testing(POCT) practices and technology indicated thatthis method o testing is still developmentaland currently requires denitive laboratoryvalidation. At the time o publication, theUnited States Department o Transportationdoes not recognize using POCT or timed urinetesting or alcohol. As a result, POCT and timedurine testing have not been included in thisCanadian Model revision. It should be notedthat where alcohol breath testing is not readilyavailable, employers should discuss with theirlab or service provider the potential options andlimitations or using alternative testing methods.

It is anticipated that mentoring relationships willbe established between companies to maximize

the eectiveness o these guidelines. Awarenesstraining must be provided to management,bargaining agent or labour providers, supervisorsand workers to ensure harmony and continuityo the guidelines.



ENDORSEMENTS ANDACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Canadian Model for Providing aSafe Workplace

Endorsements

By endorsing this Canadian Model, the ollowingorganizations provide their support to this criticalstandardized saety policy or reducing therisks associated with alcohol and drugs in theworkplace.

The Canadian Model or Providing a SaeWorkplace is endorsed by:

• Alberta Centre or Injury Control andResearch

• Alberta Chamber o Resources

• Alberta Construction Association

• Alberta Construction Saety Association

• Alberta Forest Products Association

• Alberta Mine Saety Association

• Canadian Construction Association (CCA)

• Christian Labour Association o Canada(CLAC)

• Construction Labour Relations – An AlbertaAssociation

• Construction Owners Association o Alberta

• Edmonton Construction Association

• Manuacturers Health & Saety Association

• Mechanical Contractors Association oAlberta

• Merit Contractors Association

• Oil Sands Saety Association

• Progressive Contractors Association oCanada

• Retail Saety Council o Alberta

Organizations choosing to add theirendorsement to this Canadian Model, cancontact the Construction Owners Association oAlberta (COAA) at (780) 420-1145.

Acknowledgments

The COAA grateully acknowledges thoseorganizations that contributed toward thedevelopment o this Canadian Model throughactive participation on the Review Committeeand/or the provision o unding.

Review Committee participants

• Alberta Building Trades Council

• Alberta Human Resources and Employment

• Canadian Building Trades Council

• Canadian Construction Association (CCA)


• Construction Labour Relations − An Alberta

Association

• Dynacare Kasper Medical Laboratories

• Fluor Constructors Canada Ltd.

• McLennan Ross LLP


• North American Construction Group Inc.

• Progressive Contractors Association o Canada

• Syncrude Canada Ltd.

Organizations providing unding

• Alberta Construction Association

• Chemco Electrical Contractors Ltd.


• COHR (Canadian Occupational HealthResources) Health Inc.

• Construction Labour Relations − An Alberta

Association

• Construction Owners Association o Alberta

• Drugtec Systems Inc.

• Dynacare Kasper Medical Laboratories

• Edmonton Construction Association oAlberta


• NOVA Chemical Corporation

• Progressive Contractors Association oCanada

• Syncrude Canada Ltd.



GUIDING PRINCIPLES


It is recognized that the use o illicit drugsand the inappropriate use o alcohol andprescription and non-prescription drugs can

have serious adverse eects on a person’shealth, saety and job perormance. A solidindustry-wide model, including both a policyand guidelines, will help to enhance the levelo health and saety at the workplace. Indeveloping and revising the Canadian Model,the ollowing principles were considered.

• The application o a standard alcohol anddrug model across the construction industryhelps to standardize the approach, testing,application and rehabilitation o workers. Italso assists companies in implementing andmanaging consistent standards, and helps toensure that all employees are treated airlyand with respect.

• Alcohol and drug policies do not reducethe need or eective perormancemanagement systems.

• Industry recognizes that awareness,education, eective interventions andrehabilitation are all key to a successulprogram. A standard policy will helpprovide a better understanding amongindustry stakeholders on the health andsaety issues o the use o alcohol and drugsand on the sources o support available toworkers or rehabilitation.

• Recognizing that every person has the rightto a sae and reliable workplace, the industryis committed to ensuring no workers createa risk or themselves, others and/or physicalplant equipment through the use o alcoholand drugs. Additionally, both individualsand companies have a legal and moral

responsibility to ensure their own saety andthe saety o others.

• The model must ensure and maintaincondentiality and credibility o the testingprocess and must be legally deensible.

• There is a correlation between workplaceapproaches and practices and amilyand community benets. The industryrecognizes this correlation and supports astandard alcohol and drug model that willbenet all stakeholders.

• There is a shared responsibility betweenowner companies, contractors, workers andlabour providers or the success o this model.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG GUIDELINES


In the construction industry, a strongcommitment exists to ensure all people areprovided with a sae, healthy and reliable

workplace. This commitment also extends to thesaety o customers and the general public.

The inappropriate use o alcohol and drugs canhave serious adverse eects on the saety andwell-being o workers, contractors and the public.Awareness o the potential risks associatedwith the use o alcohol and drugs can assist inproviding a sae, healthy and reliable workplace.

The objective o the ollowing alcohol anddrug guidelines and work rule is to reduce the

risk o incidents (saety, health, environmentaland operational) o which alcohol and druguse may be a contributing actor or cause. TheCanadian Model strongly supports rehabilitationactivities and opportunities or re-employmentand applies to all positions within the companyincluding management personnel.

1.0 Work standards

• No worker shall distribute, possess, consume

or use alcohol or illegal drugs on anycompany workplace.

• No worker shall report to work or be at workunder the infuence o alcohol or drugs thatmay or will aect their ability to work saely.

• No worker shall test positive or any alcoholor drugs at concentrations as specied insection 3.1 o the alcohol and drug work rule.

• No worker shall misuse prescription or non-prescription drugs while at work. I a worker

is taking a prescription or non-prescriptiondrug or which there is a potential unsaeside eect, he or she has an obligation toreport it to the supervisor.



2.0 Roles and responsibilities

The successul implementation o theseguidelines and work rule is the sharedresponsibility o owner companies, contractors,workers and labour providers.

Workers must:

• have an understanding o the alcohol anddrug work rule

• take responsibility to ensure their own saetyand the saety o others

• ensure they comply with the work standardsas part o their obligation to perorm workactivities in a sae manner

• comply with the work rule and ollow

appropriate treatment i deemed necessary

• use medications responsibly, be awareo potential side eects and notiy theirsupervisor o any potential unsae sideeects where applicable

• encourage their peers or co-workers to seekhelp when there is a potential breach orbreach o policy.

Supervisors or leaders must:

• be knowledgeable about the company’salcohol and drug work rule and procedures

• ensure they comply with the work standardsas part o their responsibility to perorm theirwork-related activities in an eective andsae manner

• be knowledgeable about the use o alcoholand drugs and be able to recognize thesymptoms o the use o alcohol and drugs

• understand their company’s perormance

management policy and how this CanadianModel is integral to that policy

• take action on perormance deviations

• take action on reported or suspected alcoholor drug use by workers.

Owners and contractors must:

• provide a sae workplace

• provide prevention programs that emphasizeawareness, education and training withrespect to the use o alcohol and drugs

• ensure the guidelines and work rule supportother perormance management systems

• ensure eective employee assistance servicesare available to workers

• assist workers in obtaining condentialassessment, counselling, reerral andrehabilitation services

• actively support and encourage rehabilitationactivities and re-employment opportunities

where applicable

• provide supervisory training and awarenessin dealing with the use o alcohol and drugsin the workplace

• participate with unions, worker associationsand employer organizations to assist in theprovision o rehabilitating opportunities orpersons who have problems with the use oalcohol and drugs

• ensure that all employees understand the

existence o and content o the guidelinesand work rule as part o the employee’sorientation to that company

• ensure that the alcohol and drug testing isperormed according to the standards setout in this document.

Unions, employer organizations, andworker associations must:

• communicate the work rule to their members

• support eective implementation o theseguidelines

• participate in ongoing review andappropriate amendments o these guidelines

• ensure employee assistance services areidentied or in place or members

• educate the industrial workorce about therisks associated with the use o alcohol anddrugs and promote treatment programs.



The Construction Owners Associationo Alberta (COAA), in partnership withthe endorsing organizations, must:

• assume ownership o these guidelines andwork rule

• ensure that reviews and amendments are madein an appropriate and timely manner with inputrom interested and appropriate stakeholders

• post the master copy o the Canadian Modelor Providing a Sae Workplace on its Website (www.coaa.ab.ca).

3.0 Education and awareness

The endorsers and their constituents recognize

the importance o making workers awarethrough education o the actual and potentialwork site risks related to the consumption oruse o alcohol or drugs. The endorsers andtheir constituents shall use education andawareness as the principal methods o ensuringcommitment to and compliance with theseguidelines and reducing workplace health andsaety concerns associated with non-compliance.

An education package, designed to createawareness and enhance understanding, whichcan be ound within this document (see Alcohol

and drug awareness or employers, supervisorsand workers), is available to all workers uponthe implementation o this Canadian Modeland during orientation or all new workers.Also in support o these guidelines, Section4.0 identies a number o additional resourcesavailable to all workers.

4.0 Available resources

In support o these guidelines and work rule,ollowing are a number o additional resourcesavailable to all workers. Note that some o theollowing inormation may change as time elapses.

Training• Better SuperVision (Ron Cherlet, Edmonton,

780-451-5444)

• Program implementation (AlbertaConstruction Saety Association, ACSA,1-800-661-2272)

• COHR Health Inc. (ph 1-866-252-1183 or403-243-1122, ax 403-243-3686, orwww.cohrhealth.com)

• Our Responsibility or Saety: The Alcoholand Drug Policy That Works (3.5 hoursupervisory workshop presented by CLRA,Ron Cherlet, 780-451-5444)

• Chandler Consulting Inc. (1-877-343-6869or 403-343-6869, orwww.chandlerconsulting.com)

Third-party administrators

• CannAmm Inc. (1-800-440-0023 or705-472-7577)

• Drugtec Systems Inc. (1-888-378-4832 or403-720-8005)

• COHR Health Inc. (1-866-252-1183 or403-243-1122)

• Drivercheck Inc. (1-888-588-6604)

• Sapec Consulting (403-278-8029)

• ECS Saety Services (1-877-784-3784 or403-362-5552)

• Chandler Consulting Inc. (1-877-343-6869or 403-343-6869)



Laboratories (testing services)

• Dynacare Kasper Medical Laboratories,Edmonton, AB (1-800-661-9876)

• Maxxam Analytics Inc., Mississauga, ON(905-817-5700)

• Gamma Dynacare Medical Laboratories,London, ON (519-679-1630)

Employee assistance services

• Complete listing in yellow pages underEmployee assistance programs

Alcoholism inormation and treatmentcentres

• Al-Anon/Alateen inormation services(Edmonton 780-433-1818, Calgary403-266-5850)

• Alberta Alcohol and Drug AbuseCommission (AADAC) (1-866-33AADAC,1-866-332-2322 or www.aadac.com)

• Alcoholics Anonymous (Edmonton780-424-5900, Calgary 403-777-1212)

• Business and Industry Clinic (780-538-6350)

• Smoking Help Line (1-866-332-2322)

• Women or Sobriety (Edmonton780-429-3855)

• Other listings in the yellow pages underAlcohol addiction inormation and treatment centres and Drug addictioninormation and treatment

Family physicians

• Complete listing in yellow pages underPhysicians

Social service organizations

• Complete listing in yellow pages under Social service organizations

Business representatives

• At each local union oce

Audiocassettes

• Herald House/Independence Press,by Terrance T. Gorski(1-800-373-8382)

• Personality styles and the emergence o

relapse warning signs

• Relapse warning signs and the stageso recovery

• Core issues in relapse prevention

• Relapse and the DSM lll R personalitytypes

• Cocaine craving and relapse. Acomparison between alcohol andcocaine

• Understanding the 12 steps. A guide orcounselors and therapists

• The role o co-dependence in relapse

• Addictive relationships – Why love goeswrong in recovery

• Relapse prevention skills with dicultclient. Post traumatic stress disorder andRP (Part 1-3)

• Relapse prevention skills with dicultclient. Antisocial personality disorder andRP (Part 1-4)

• Relapse prevention skills with dicultclient. Craving and relapse prevention(Part 1-4)

• Relapse prevention skills with dicultclient. An overview o CENAPS dualdiagnosis system



Pamphlets

• Channing L. Bete Co.(1-800-628-7733)

• What everyone should know about drugs

• About cocaine

• About “crack” or “rock” cocaine

• AADAC (1-866-33AADAC or www.aadac.com)

• AADAC workplace inormationseries

• Workplace health and wellness

• Workplace peer support

• The basics: Alcohol, other drugs andgambling

• An addition in the amily: What itmeans or the workplace

• The addicted employee: Atertreatment

• Alcohol/drug policy development

• Employment-related alcohol/drugtesting

• Dealing with the troubled employee

• Substance use and gambling in theworkplace, 2002: A replication study

• It’s our business series

• Addressing alcohol, drugs andgambling in the workplace: Manualor leaders

• Someone at work has a problem

• Is drinking, using drugs or gamblingaecting my work?

• What you need to know about tnessor work

Videos

• Canadian Learning Co. Inc.(1-800-267-2977 or 519-537-2360)

• Alcoholism and chemical dependencyin women

• The co-dependent woman

• Dependent denial

• Marijuana and the mind: Intoxicationand addiction

• Continuing recovery skills

• ACA recovery: Meeting the child within

• ACA: Breaking the continuum

• Adult children o alcoholics

• Substance abuse: A managementintervention program

• Alcohol abuse: The early warning signs

• Relapse prevention

• Overcoming co-dependency: The pathto wellness

• FMS Productions Inc.

(1-800-421-4609)

• Father Martin’s guidelines

• Responsibility and recovery (by JosephA. Pursh, M.D.)

• My ather’s son

• Films or the Humanities andSciences Inc. (1-800-257-5126)

• The addicted brain

• Focus on the Family (P.O. Box 9800,Stn Terminal, Vancouver, B.C.,V6B 4G3)

• Face reality

• GWC Inc. (1-800-851-5406)

• Crack Attack (David L. Ohlms, M.D.)

• Heroin and other opiates (with DavidOhlms, M.D.)

• Marijuana in the 90s (with David Ohlms,M.D.)



• Kinetic Inc.(1-800-263-6910)

• Getting o the hook

• Hallucinogens & designer drugs (withDavid Ohlms, M.D.)

• Cocaine in the 90s (with Dave Ohlms,M.D.)

• Too dangerous to work with

• What everyone should know about drugabuse

• Medical aspects o chemical dependency

• Addictive relationships – Relationship styles

• Medical Audiovisual Comm. Inc.(1-800-757-4868)

• Last call – Alcoholism and co-dependency



P

O L I C Y

Alcohol and Drug Policy



2. THE ALCOHOL AND DRUG POLICYIS IMPORTANT

2.1 The use o alcohol and drugs adverselyaects the ability o a person to work ina sae manner. Employees at constructionworkplaces are oten working

independently or with equipment ormaterial in an environment that posesa threat to the saety o themselves,the workorce, the workplace and theproperty at the workplace, i handledwithout proper care and attention. Insetting the requirements in the WorkRule it is acknowledged that assessmentso risks relating to work activities,equipment and processes may lead toa workplace adopting more rigorousrequirements in relation to the risks aced

in particular work. This Policy will remindemployees o the risks associated withthe use o alcohol and other drugs andprovide understandable and predictableresponses when an employee’s conduct jeopardizes the saety o the workplace.

2.2 By pursuing the purposes o this alcoholand drug policy, the company promotes

(a) the saety and dignity o its employees,

(b) the welare o its employees and their

amilies,

(c) the best interests o the bargainingagent or labour provider to whichemployees belong, and

(d) the best interests o the company, theowner, the construction industry andthe public.

2.3 There are no other reasonable alternativesavailable to the company that impose asmaller burden on any rights an employee

may have under Alberta’s Human Rights,Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act andat the same time are equally as eectivein promoting the purposes o this alcoholand drug policy.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG POLICY


1. PURPOSES OF THE ALCOHOL AND

DRUG POLICY

1.1 The alcohol and drug policy is established

(a) to provide a sae workplace or allemployees and those whose saetymay be aected by the conduct oemployees, and

(b) to ensure that all employees aretreated airly and with respect.



3. ALCOHOL AND DRUG WORK RULE

3.1 An employee shall not

(a) use, possess or oer or sale alcoholand drugs or any product or devicethat may be used to attempt to

tamper with any sample or a drugand alcohol test while on companyproperty or at a company workplace,

(b) report to work or work

(i) with an alcohol level equal to orin excess o 0.040 grams per 210litres o breath,

(ii) with a drug level or the drugsset out below equal to or inexcess o the concentrations set

out below:

or

(iii) while unt or work on accounto the use o a prescription ornonprescription drug,

(c) reuse to

(i) comply with a request made bya representative o the companyunder 4.3, or

(ii) comply with a request to submitto an alcohol and drug test madeunder 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 or 4.7, or

(iii) provide a sample or an alcoholand drug test under 4.8,

(d) tamper with a sample or an alcohol

and drug test given under 4.8.

Drugs or classes o drugsScreening concentrationequal to or in excess o

ng/mL

Confrmation concentrationequal to or in excess o

ng/mL

Marijuana metabolites 50 15

Cocaine metabolites 300 150

Opiate metabolites 2000 2000

Phencyclidine 25 25

Amphetamines 1000 500



3.2 An employee complies with 3.1(a) or3.1(b)(iii) o the alcohol and drug workrule i he or she is in possession while ata company workplace o a prescriptiondrug prescribed or him or her or anonprescription drug and

(a) the employee is using the prescriptionor nonprescription drug or itsintended purpose and in the mannerdirected by the employee’s physicianor pharmacist or the manuacturer othe drug, and

(b) the use o the prescription ornonprescription drug does notadversely aect the employee’s abilityto saely perorm his or her duties,and

(c) the employee has notied his or hersupervisor or manager beore startingwork o any potentially unsae sideeects associated with the use o theprescription or nonprescription drug.

3.3 The supervisor or manager who hasreceived a notication under 3.2 may notdisclose any inormation provided under3.2 to any person other than a personwho needs to know, to discharge astatutory or common-law obligation.

4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THEALCOHOL AND DRUG WORKRULE

4.1 Education

4.1.1 The company is committed to inorming

employees o the existence o this alcoholand drug policy and to taking such othersteps as are reasonable to inorm itsemployees o the saety risks associatedwith the use o alcohol and drugs and theassistance available under the employeeassistance services program.

4.1.2 The likelihood that an employee willcomply with the alcohol and drug workrule is increased i he or she knows thesaety risks associated with the use o

alcohol and drugs and the assistanceavailable under the employee assistanceservices program.

4.2 Sel-help

4.2.1 This policy encourages employees whobelieve that they may require the helpprovided by substance abuse experts(SAEs) and employee assistance servicesprograms (EAPs) to voluntarily requestthat help. An employee requesting helpwill not be disciplined unless he or she:

(a) has ailed to comply with the alcoholand drug work rule,

(b) has been requested to conrmcompliance with the alcohol and drugwork rule under 4.3,

(c) has been requested to submit to analcohol and drug test under 4.4, 4.6or 4.7, or

(d) has been involved in an incident

reerred to in 4.5.

4.2.2 An employee who believes that he or shemay be unable to comply with the alcoholand drug work rule should seek help by:

(a) contacting a person responsible orthe administration o the employeeassistance services program,

(b) inorming a amily member orriend and asking or assistance incontacting a person responsible or

the administration o the employeeassistance services program, or



(c) inorming a co-worker, a supervisor,or a representative o the company,the bargaining agent or labourprovider to which the employeemay belong o his or her wish tocontact a person responsible orthe administration o the employee

assistance services program.

4.2.3 In responding to an employee’s requestor help, a oreman, supervisor ormanager must

(a) inorm the employee o the assistanceavailable under the employeeassistance services program,

(b) encourage the employee to utilize theemployee assistance services programwhich may assist the employee, and

(c) inorm the employee that i he or sheails to utilize the employee assistanceservices program the company mayinsist that the employee submit to anyor all o the ollowing:

(i) a medical assessment conductedby a physician,

(ii) alcohol and drug testing as setout in 4.8,

(iii) an assessment conducted by asubstance abuse expert,

and that his or her ailure to do somay result in the termination o his orher employment.

4.2.4 An employee who receives assistancerom the employee assistance servicesprogram on account o his or her use oalcohol and drugs must comply with theterms and conditions o any program

established to help the employee asa condition o his or her continuedemployment.

4.2.5 An employee who is at work and enrolledin the employee assistance servicesprogram must comply with the alcoholand drug work rule.

4.3 Possession o alcohol and drugs

4.3.1 A representative o the company or theowner who has reasonable grounds

to believe an employee may not be incompliance with 3.1(a) o the alcohol anddrug work rule, must request

(a) that employee to conrm that he orshe is in compliance with 3.1(a) o thealcohol and drug work rule, or

(b) the assistance o appropriateauthorities to conrm that employee’scompliance with 3.1(a) o the alcohol

and drug work rule.

4.3.2 A representative o the company or theowner must provide to the employee thereason or the request under 4.3.1.

4.4 Observation o employee conduct

4.4.1 A supervisor or a manager o anemployee must request an employee tosubmit to an alcohol and drug test under4.8 i the supervisor or manager andthe next level o management present

at the company workplace, i any, havereasonable grounds to believe that anemployee is or may be unable to workin a sae manner because o the use oalcohol and drugs.

4.4.2 A supervisor or manager o an employeemust provide to the employee the reasonor the request under 4.4.1.

4.5 Incidents and near misses

4.5.1 A supervisor or manager o an employeemust request an employee to submit toan alcohol and drug test under 4.8 i thesupervisor or manager and the next levelo management present at the companyworkplace, i any, have reasonablegrounds to believe that an employee wasinvolved in an incident or near miss.

4.5.2 A supervisor or manager o an employeemust provide to the employee the reasonor the request under 4.5.1.

4.5.3 A supervisor or manager must makea request under 4.5.1 immediatelyollowing an incident or near miss unlessit is not practicable or reasonable to do sountil a later time.

4.5.4 A supervisor or a manager o anemployee need not request the employeeto submit to an alcohol and drug test ithe supervisor or manager and the nextlevel o management present at thecompany workplace, i any, concludethat there is objective evidence to believethat the use o alcohol and drugs did notcontribute to the cause o the incident ornear miss.



4.6 Random testing

4.6.1 At work sites where the employer hasconrmed in writing that each employeeis covered by an employee assistanceservices program, the employer mayimplement a lawul computer-generated

random alcohol and drug testing programin accordance with the procedures setout in the United States Departmento Transportation Workplace Drug andAlcohol Testing Programs in orce aso the date o this publication. In theevent a lawul random alcohol anddrug testing program is to be adoptedby an employer, a written notice shallbe delivered to each employee and awritten notice shall be provided to anybargaining agent o aected employees

o the implementation o random alcoholand drug testing at least 30 days prior toimplementation o that program at thework site.

4.6.2 Where an owner directly or by contractrequires random alcohol and drugtesting, such a random testing programmust be applicable to all companies andemployees at the work site.

4.7 Site access testing

When an owner directly or by contractrequires site access testing, an employermay require alcohol and drug testingunder 4.8 o any employee as a conditiono access to the owner’s property.

4.8 Alcohol and drug testing

4.8.1 The company agrees to retain a laboratory,as dened in this policy, to conduct drugtesting under 4.8 in accordance with thoseparts o the United States Departmento Transportation Workplace Drug andAlcohol Testing Programs in orce as othe date o this publication, which relateto testing procedures in laboratories.Additionally, the company agrees to havealcohol testing under 4.8 conducted bypersonnel in accordance with the abovestandards and procedures as they relate toalcohol testing.

4.8.2 Alcohol and drug testing is conductedto determine the presence o anyo marijuana metabolites, cocainemetabolites, opiate metabolites,phencyclidine, amphetamines and alcoholin the specimen provided by the employee.

4.8.3 A summary o the eatures o the alcoholand drug tests is set out in Appendix A othis alcohol and drug policy.

4.8.4 By continuing his or her employmentwith the company the employee acceptsthe terms o this alcohol and drug policyand authorizes the laboratory to providethe test results to the company or anyperson with legal authority to requirethe disclosure o the test results, subjectto 4.9.4, below. Further, the employeeauthorizes the medical review ocer toprovide the test results to a substanceabuse expert to whom the employee hasbeen reerred under the provisions othis policy.

4.9 Alcohol and drug testing results

4.9.1 Alcohol and drug test results can benegative, positive, tampered and invalidor inconclusive. A negative test resultmeans the employee is in compliance,a positive test result means non-

compliance, a tampered test resultmeans non-compliance, and an invalidor inconclusive test result cannot berelied upon to determine compliance ornon-compliance. All test results will beprovided in a condential written reportrom the medical review ocer to thedesignated company representative.

4.9.2 A report rom the medical review ocerto the designated company representativethat the employee’s sample produceda negative test result means that theemployee complied with 3.1(b) othe alcohol and drug work rule. Thedesignated company representative mustnotiy the employee o the negative testresult and that no other steps under thisalcohol and drug policy will be taken. Itmay be appropriate to pursue proceduresunder other policies or take other steps,including a medical assessment, in orderto assist the employee to perorm at asatisactory level.



4.9.3 A condential written report rom themedical review ocer to the designatedcompany representative that theemployee’s sample produced a positivetest result means that the employee ailedto comply with 3.1(b) o the alcohol anddrug work rule, unless the medical review

ocer has determined that there is alegitimate medical explanation or thepositive test result whereby a tness-or-work assessment should be conductedand there may have been a ailure tocomply with 3.2.

4.9.4 A condential written report rom themedical review ocer to the designatedcompany representative that theemployee’s sample has been tamperedwith means that the employee ailed to

comply with 3.1(d) o the alcohol anddrug work rule.

4.9.5 A condential written report romthe medical review ocer to thedesignated company representativethat the employee’s sample is invalid orinconclusive means that the test cannotbe relied upon or the purposes o thiswork rule.

4.9.6 Where a person is reerred to testingrequired under 4.7 by the bargaining

agent or labour provider o that person,a condential written report rom themedical review ocer shall be issuedto the designated representative o thebargaining agent or labour provider.

4.9.7 In order to preserve the condentialityo test results, the designated companyrepresentative and any person to whomdisclosure is permitted under this alcoholand drug policy must not disclose the testresults to any person other than a personwho needs to know the test results todischarge an obligation under this alcoholand drug policy.

4.10 Assistance o a representative

4.10.1 A representative o a bargaining agent orlabour provider o which an employee isa member and with whom the employerhas a bargaining relationship may assistthe employee with any matter arising

under this alcohol and drug policy i theemployee wishes to have the assistanceo a representative.

4.10.2 A representative o a bargaining agent orlabour provider o which an employee isa member and with whom the employerhas a bargaining relationship, may attendany meeting or discussion which takesplace under this alcohol and drug policyi the employee wishes the representativeto attend and the attendance o therepresentative does not unduly delay thetime at which the meeting or discussiontakes place.



5. CONSEQUENCES FOR FAILURETO COMPLY WITH THE ALCOHOLAND DRUG WORK RULE

5.1 Company responses to violations

The company may discipline, or terminate or

cause, the employment o an employee whoails to comply with the alcohol and drug workrule. The appropriate consequence depends onthe acts o the case, including the nature oviolation, the existence o prior violations, theresponse to prior corrective programs and theseriousness o the violation.

5.2 Violation o 3.1(b) o the alcoholand drug work rule

5.2.1 Prior to the company making a nal

decision with regard to discipliningor terminating the employment o anemployee, who has ailed to complywith 3.1(b) o the alcohol and drugwork rule, the company shall direct theemployee to and the employee shallmeet with a substance abuse expert. Thesubstance abuse expert shall make aninitial assessment o the employee andmake appropriate recommendations.The assessment by the substance abuseexpert shall be applied utilizing theprocesses and approaches set out in

Appendix B. The employee shall, throughthe substance abuse expert, provideto the company a condential reporto his or her initial assessment andrecommendations. The company thenshall make the nal decision under 5.1.The initial assessment is to be completedas soon as possible, and the report shallbe delivered to the company withintwo days o completion. Failure by theemployee to attend the assessmentor ollow the course o corrective or

rehabilitation action shall be cause ortermination o the employee. Duringthe period o assessment and correctiverehabilitative programs recommended bythe substance abuse expert the employeeshall be deemed to be suspended romhis or her employment without pay.

5.2.2 In addition to disciplining or terminatingor cause the employment o anemployee who ails to comply with 3.1(b)o the alcohol and drug work rule, thecompany may give written notice to thatperson that the person will not be re-employed again by the company unlessthe person provides the company withthe ollowing:

(a) a certicate issued

(i) by the rehabilitation programservice provider certiying thatthe person who was terminatedhas successully completedits rehabilitation program

and continues to comply withall the requirements o therehabilitation program, or

(ii) by a licensed physician withknowledge o substance abusedisorders certiying that theperson who was terminatedis able to saely perorm theduties he or she will be requiredto perorm i employed by thecompany, and

(b) a statement signed by the personand, i represented by a bargainingagent or labourer provider, by thebargaining agent or labour provideracknowledging that the personagrees to any conditions imposedas part o a corrective rehabilitativeprogram and such other reasonableconditions set by the employer.The employer may terminate theemployment o the employee whoails to comply with the conditions set

out in such statement.

5.3 Violation o 3.1 (a), (c) or (d) othe alcohol and drug work rule

I a company decides to discipline or terminate orcause the employment o an employee who ailsto comply with 3.1(a) or (c) or (d) o the alcoholand drug work rule, the company shall reer suchemployee to a substance abuse expert and shallnotiy the bargaining agent or labour provider, ithe employee has one, o such reerral.

5.4 Owner responses to violations

5.4.1 The owner o a site where a person wasworking when he or she ailed to complywith the alcohol and drug work rule maygive the person who ailed to complywith the alcohol and drug work rulewritten notice that he or she shall notenter the owner’s site.

5.4.2 The owner o a site where a person wasworking when he or she ailed to complywith the alcohol and drug work rule may

give that person who has been deniedpermission to enter its site under 5.4.1written notice that the person may enterthe owner’s site i



(a) a company engaged in work at theowner’s site, or

(b) the bargaining agent or labourprovider o that person, i the personis represented by a bargaining agentor labour provider, or

(c) a company engaged in work at theowner’s site and the bargaining agentor labour provider o that person

provides the owner with a writtenstatement by the person who has beendenied permission to enter the owner’swork site under 5.4.1 acknowledgingthat that person agrees to reasonableconditions imposed by the owner or thecontractor or the bargaining agent orlabour provider or a part o a corrective

or rehabilitative program.

5.4.3 The owner may withdraw permissiongiven under 5.4.2 i the person givenpermission to enter the owner’s worksite under 5.4.2 ails to comply withthe alcohol and drug work rule or anycondition imposed under 5.4.2.

5.4.4 The owner is not obliged to give a personwho has been denied permission to enterthe owner’s site under 5.4.3 another

opportunity to work on the owner’s site.

5.5 Bargaining agent or labourprovider responses to violations

A bargaining agent or labour provider shalldecline to dispatch a person to a companyuntil that organization has reviewed the initialassessment, reerred to in Article 5.2 or 5.3,and until the conditions set out therein or theperson have been met.

6. DEFINITIONS

6.1 In this alcohol and drug policy, theollowing denitions apply:

(a) Alcohol: Any substance that maybe consumed and that has an

alcoholic content in excess o 0.5per cent by volume.

(b) Alcohol and drugs: Alcohol or drugsor both.

(c) Alcohol and drug test: A testadministered in accordance with 4.8.1o this alcohol and drug policy.

(d) Alcohol and drug work rule: Thealcohol and drug work rule set out in3.1 o this alcohol and drug policy.

(e) Company: A corporation,partnership, association, joint venture,trust or organizational group opersons whether incorporated or not.

() Company workplace: Includesall real or personal property,acilities, land, buildings, equipment,containers, vehicles, vessels, boatsand aircrat whether owned,leased or used by the company andwherever it may be located.

(g) Drug paraphernalia: Includes anypersonal property which is associatedwith the use o any drug, substance,chemical or agent the possession owhich is unlawul in Canada.

(h) Drugs: Includes any drug, substance,chemical or agent the use orpossession o which is unlawulin Canada or requires a personalprescription rom a licensed treating

physician, any nonprescriptionmedication lawully sold in Canadaand drug paraphernalia.

(i) Employee: Any person engagedin work on a work site where thispolicy applies.

(j) Employee assistance servicesprogram: Services that aredesigned to help employees who areexperiencing personal problems suchas alcohol and drug abuse.

(k) Employer: A person who controlsand directs the activities o anemployee under an express or impliedcontract o employment.



(l) Incident : An occurrence,circumstance or condition that causedor had the potential to cause damageto person, property, reputation,security or the environment.

(m) Laboratory: A laboratory certied by

the United States Department o Healthand Human Services under the NationalLaboratory Certication Program.

(n) Manager: Includes team leaders andother persons in authority.

(o) Medical review ocer (MRO): Alicensed physician with knowledgeo substance abuse disorders andthe ability to evaluate an employee’spositive test results who is responsibleor receiving and reviewing laboratory

results generated by an employer’sdrug testing program and evaluatingmedical explanations or certain drugtest results.

(p) Negative test result: A reportrom the medical review ocerthat the employee who provided aspecimen or alcohol and drug testingdid not have an alcohol and drugconcentration level equal to or inexcess o that set out in 3.1(b).

(q) Owner: The person in legalpossession o a site.

(r) Positive test result: A report romthe medical review ocer that theemployee who provided a specimenor alcohol and drug testing did havean alcohol or drug concentrationlevel equal to or in excess o that setout in 3.1(b).

(s) Reasonable grounds: Includes

inormation established by thedirect observation o the employee’sconduct or other indicators, suchas the physical appearance o theemployee, the smell associated withthe use o alcohol or drugs on hisor her person or in the vicinity o hisor her person, his or her attendancerecord, circumstances surroundingan incident or near miss and thepresence o alcohol, drugs or drugparaphernalia in the vicinity o the

employee or the area where theemployee worked.

(t) Rehabilitation program: A programtailored to the needs o an individualwhich may include education,counselling and residential careoered to assist a person to complywith the alcohol and drug work rule.

(u) Substance abuse expert (SAE):A licensed physician; a licensed orcertied social worker; a licensedor certied psychologist; a licensedor certied employee assistanceexpert; or an alcohol and drug abusecounsellor. He or she has receivedtraining specic to the SAE rolesand responsibilities, has knowledgeo and clinical experience in thediagnosis and treatment o substanceabuse-related disorders, and has

an understanding o the saetyimplications o substance use andabuse.

(v) Supervisor: The person whodirects the work o others and may,depending on the nature o thecompany’s structure, include theoreman, general oreman, supervisor,superintendent and team leader.

(w) Tamper: To alter, meddle, interereor change.

(x) Work: Includes training and anyother breaks rom work while at acompany workplace.

(y) Work site: A place at which aperson perorms work or an owneror employer.



APPENDIX A –Alcohol and drug testingprocedures

The ollowing procedures are a general overviewonly. For more detailed inormation, contact your

testing provider.

I Alcohol testing

General

1. The donor is the person rom whom abreath or saliva sample is collected.

2. The donor is directed to go to a collectionsite in order to give a breath or saliva sample.

3. The breath alcohol technician (BAT) or

the screening test technician (STT) asappropriate, establishes the identity o thedonor. Photo identication is preerable.Positive identication by a companyrepresentative who holds a supervisoryposition is acceptable.

4. The BAT or STT as appropriate, explains thetesting procedure to the donor.

5. The company must securely storeinormation about alcohol test results toensure that disclosure to unauthorized

persons does not occur.

6. Breath testing and saliva testing devicesare used to conduct alcohol screening testsand must be listed on the National HighwayTrac Saety Administrations (NHTSA)conorming products list.

Breath testing

1. The BAT and the donor complete thoseparts o the alcohol testing orm that are tobe completed beore the donor provides a

breath sample.

2. The BAT opens an individually wrapped ora sealed mouthpiece in the presence o thedonor and attaches it to the breath testingdevice in the prescribed manner.

3. The BAT explains to the donor how toprovide a breath sample and asks the donorto provide a breath sample.

4. The BAT reads the test result and ensuresthat the test result is recorded on the

alcohol testing orm ater showing theresults to the donor.

5. The BAT completes the part o the alcoholtesting orm that is to be completed aterthe donor provides a breath sample and asksthe donor to do so as well.

6. I the test result shows an alcohol level thatis less than 0.020 grams/210 litres o breath,the BAT inorms the donor that there is noneed to conduct any urther testing andreports the result in a condential mannerto the company’s designated representative.While the initial communication need not

be in writing, the BAT must subsequentlyprovide a written report o the test result tothe company’s designated representative.

7. I the test result shows an alcohol level thatis equal to or greater than 0.020 grams/210litres o breath, the BAT inorms the donor othe need to conduct a conrmation test.

Saliva testing

1. The STT and the donor complete thoseparts o the alcohol testing orm that are

to be completed beore the donor providesa sample.

2. The STT checks the expiration date o thesaliva testing device, shows the date to theemployee and uses a saliva testing deviceonly i the expiration date has not passed.

3. The STT opens an individually wrapped or asealed package containing the saliva testingdevice in the presence o the donor.

4. The STT invites the donor to insert the salivatesting device into the donor’s mouth or thetime it takes to secure a proper specimen.I the donor does not wish to do this, thecollection site person oers to do so.

5. The STT reads the result the saliva testingdevice produces and records the test resulton the alcohol testing orm ater showingthe results to the donor.

6. The STT completes the part o the alcoholtesting orm that is to be completed ater

the donor provides a saliva sample and asksthe donor to do so as well.

7. I the test result shows an alcohol levelthat is less than 0.020 grams o alcoholin 100 millilitres o saliva or an equivalentconcentration in other units, the STT inormsthe donor that there is no need to conductany urther testing and reports the resultin a condential manner to the company’sdesignated representative. While the initialcommunication need not be in writing, theSTT must subsequently provide a writtenreport o the test results to the company’sdesignated representative.



8. I the test result shows an alcohol level thatis equal to or greater than 0.020 gramso alcohol in 100 millilitres o saliva or anequivalent concentration in other units,the STT inorms the donor o the need toconduct a conrmation test.

Conrmation test

1. I a breath alcohol testing device was usedor the screening test, an evidential breathalcohol device must be used to conduct thealcohol conrmation test. I a saliva testingdevice was used or the screening test,the conrmation test will use an evidentialbreath alcohol testing device.

2. The BAT advises the donor not to eat, drink,put anything into his or her mouth or belchbeore the conrmation test is complete.

3. The conrmation test must start not lessthan teen minutes ater the completiono the screening test and not more thanthirty minutes ater the completion o thescreening test.

4. The BAT and the donor complete thoseparts o the alcohol testing orm that are tobe completed beore the donor provides abreath sample.

5. The BAT opens a new individually wrappedor sealed mouthpiece in the presence o thedonor and inserts it into the breath testingdevice in the prescribed manner.

6. The BAT explains to the donor how toprovide a breath sample and asks the donorto provide a breath sample.

7. The BAT reads the test result on the deviceand shows the donor the result displayed.I the conrmation test result is equal toor in excess o 0.040 grams per 210 litres

o breath, the BAT will do an externalcalibration check (accuracy check) to ensurethe device is in working order. The BATensures that the test result is recorded onthe alcohol testing orm. The BAT veries theprinted results with the donor.

8. The BAT completes the part o the alcoholtesting orm that is to be completed aterthe donor provides a breath sample and asksthe donor to do so as well.

9. The BAT immediately reports in a

condential manner the test results to thecompany’s designated representative. Whilethe initial communication need not be inwriting, the BAT must subsequently providea written report o the test result to thecompany’s designated representative.

II Drug testing

1. The donor is the person rom whom a urinespecimen is collected.

2. The donor is directed to go to a collectionsite in order to give a urine specimen.

3. The collection site person must establish theidentity o the donor. Photo identicationis preerable. Positive identication bya company representative who holds asupervisory position is acceptable.

4. The donor must remove coveralls, jacket,coat, hat or any other outer clothing andleave these garments and any briecase orpurse with the collection site person.

5. The donor must remove any items rom his

or her pockets and allow the collection siteperson to inspect them to determine thatno items are present which could be used toadulterate a specimen.

6. The donor must give up possession o anyitem which could be used to adulterate aspecimen to the collection site person untilthe donor has completed the testing process.

7. The collection site person may set areasonable time limit or providing a urinespecimen.

8. The collection site person selects or allowsthe donor to select an individually wrappedor sealed specimen container. Either thecollection site person or the donor, in thepresence o the other, must unwrap or breakthe seal o the specimen container.

9. The donor may provide his or her urinespecimen in private, in most circumstances.The specimen must contain at least orty-ve millilitres.

10. The collection site person notes on the chaino orm any unusual donor behaviour.

11. The collection site person determines thevolume and temperature o the urine in thespecimen container.

12. The collection site person inspects thespecimen and notes on the chain o custodyorm any unusual ndings.

13. I the temperature o the specimen is outsidethe acceptable range or there is evidence

that the specimen has been tampered with,the donor must provide another specimenunder direct observation by the collectionsite person or another person i thecollection site person is not the same genderas the donor.



14. The collection site person splits the urinespecimen into two specimen bottles. Onebottle is the primary specimen and the otheris the split specimen.

15. The collection site person places a tamper-evident bottle seal on each o the specimen

bottles and writes the date on the tamper-evident seals.

16. The donor must initial the tamper-evidentbottle seals to certiy that the bottles containthe urine specimen the donor provided.

17. The donor and the collection site personcomplete the chain o custody orm and sealthe specimen bottles and the laboratory copyo the chain o custody orm in a plastic bag.

18. The collection site personnel arrange to ship

the two specimen bottles to the laboratoryas quickly as possible.

19. The laboratory must be the holder o acerticate issued by the Substance Abuseand Mental Health Services Administrationo the United States Department o Healthand Human Services under the NationalLaboratory Certication Program.

20. The laboratory must use chain o custodyprocedures to maintain control andaccountability o urine specimens at all times.

21. Laboratory personnel inspect each packageor evidence o possible tampering andnote evidence o tampering on thespecimen orms.

22. Laboratory personnel conduct validitytesting to determine whether certainadulterants or oreign substances wereadded to the urine specimen.

23. Laboratory personnel conduct an initial

screening test on the primary specimen orthe drugs set out in 3.1 using establishedimmunoassay procedures. No urther testingis conducted i the initial screening testproduces a negative test result.

24. Laboratory personnel conduct aconrmatory test on specimens identiedas positive by the initial screening test. Theconrmatory test uses gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry.

25. A certiying scientist reviews the test

results beore certiying the results as anaccurate report.

26. The laboratory reports the test results on theprimary specimen to the company’s medicalreview ocer (MRO) in condence.

27. The MRO, i satised that there is nolegitimate medical explanation or a positivetest result, will inorm the company’sdesignated representative in a condentialwritten report that an employee testedpositive. Prior to making a nal decision onwhether a test result is positive, the MRO

must give the employee an opportunity todiscuss the results. The MRO shall reportto the employer whether the test result isnegative, tampered, invalid or positive, or, ipositive, whether or not there is a legitimatemedical explanation.

28. An employee who has received noticerom the MRO that he or she has testedpositive may ask the MRO within 72 hourso receiving notice that he or she has testedpositive to direct another laboratory to

test the split specimen. The employee isresponsible or reimbursing the company orthe cost o the second test.

29. The laboratory reports the test results on thesplit specimen to the company’s MROin condence.

30. The MRO will declare the test resultsnegative i the test results or the splitspecimen are negative and the ailure toreconrm is not due to the presence o aninterering substance or adulterant.



APPENDIX B –Substance abuse expert

The substance abuse expert

The substance abuse expert (SAE) is a personwho evaluates individuals (clients) who have

sought or been reerred or assessment. The SAEmakes recommendations concerning education,treatment, ollow-up testing and atercare.

The SAE is not an advocate or the employer,the client or the bargaining agent or labourprovider i the employee has one. The unctiono the SAE is to protect the saety and health othe client, his or her co-workers and the worksite by proessionally evaluating the client andrecommending appropriate education and/ortreatment, ollow-up tests and atercare.

The SAE is a licensed physician; a licensedor certied social worker; a licensed orcertied psychologist; a licensed or certiedemployee assistance proessional; or an alcoholand drug abuse counsellor. He or she hasreceived training specic to the SAE roles andresponsibilities, has knowledge o and clinicalexperience in the diagnosis and treatment osubstance abuse-related disorders, and hasan understanding o the saety implications osubstance use and abuse.

The evaluation and assessment

Consistent with sound clinical and establishedSAE standards o care in clinical practice,and utilizing reliable alcohol and drug abuseassessment tools, the SAE must conduct a ace-to-ace evaluation o the client. The evaluationshould comprise a standard psychosocial history;an in-depth drug and alcohol use history (withinormation regarding onset, duration, requencyand amount o use; substance(s) o use andchoice; emotional and physical characteristics o

use; associated health, work, amily, personaland interpersonal problems); and, a currentmental status. The evaluation should provide adiagnosis, treatment recommendations and atreatment plan to be successully complied withprior to the employee becoming eligible orollow-up evaluation and subsequent return towork in the construction industry.

When a client has ailed to comply with 3.1(b)or 3.1(d) o the Canadian Model, the SAE mayconsult with the medical review ocer (MRO)who veried the client’s alcohol and drug testin gathering inormation or this evaluation. TheMRO and SAE are ree to discuss the test result,substance concentration levels (i available),and any other pertinent medical inormationdisclosed during the MRO’s verication interviewwith the client.

The SAE shall provide a condential written reportto the employer, the client and the bargainingagent or labour provider i the employee has one,advising o the SAE’s determination o the level oassistance the client requires.

The reerral

As a result o the evaluation and assessment,the SAE will reer the client to the appropriateprogram or programs. The SAE will acilitatethe reerral by making contact with therecommended program or programs, and willtransmit the treatment plan with diagnosticdeterminations to the treatment provider(s).

Follow-up evaluation

Following prescribed treatment, the SAE willevaluate the client prior to return to work in

the construction industry. The SAE will gaugethe client’s success in meeting the objectiveso the prescribed treatment plan. The client’sability to successully demonstrate compliancewith the initial treatment recommendationswill be determined in a clinically based ollow-up evaluation. The SAE will also base thedetermination on written reports rom andpersonal communication with the respectiveeducation and/or treatment programproessionals. The SAE will prepare a reportor the client, the employer or prospective

employer, and the bargaining agent or labourprovider i the employee has one, setting out theclinical determination as to the client’s successin meeting the objectives o the treatmentplan, and may include in the report the client’scontinuing care needs in respect to specictreatment, atercare, support group servicesrecommendations and a ollow-up testing plan.



L E G A L O P I N I O N

Independent

Legal Opinion



INDEPENDENT LEGAL OPINION


You have requested our opinion as to thecompliance o the “Canadian Model orProviding a Sae Workplace” (2005 revision) (the

“2005 Policy”), specically the ollowing partso it:

(a) Guiding Principles, and

(b) Alcohol and Drug Guidelines.

We express no opinion on the appendices to the2005 Policy.

This opinion is provided as o October 7, 2005.

Cautions

In reviewing and relying on this opinion, thereader must take into account the ollowing:

1. The law relating to human rights, alcoholand drug dependencies and alcohol anddrug testing is in an ongoing period odevelopment. It would be incorrect to viewthe law in this area as “mature” in the sensethat most o the basic principles have beenclearly established. Rather, the interactionamong issues associated with saety,human rights, privacy, labour law and thelaw o employment generally continue tobe developed. For example, at the time owriting, the Court o Appeal o Alberta hasremitted the Elizabeth Metis Settlement casediscussed below, back to a Panel Member othe Alberta Human Rights and CitizenshipCommission, making no comments onthe Queen’s Bench decision that had beenappealed to it other than that the learnedQueen’s Bench Justice had overlooked the“threshold issue” o whether the alcohol anddrug testing policy in question applied at

all to the acts. Once the Panel has reheardand decided the case again, and any urtherappeals are completed, the 2005 Policy mayhave to be substantially reconsidered.

2. To the extent there have been relatively clearstatements o law rom some courts, thereis not yet unanimity amongst the variouscourts. For example, although Entrop v.Imperial Oil is thought to be one o theleading cases on drug and alcohol testing,the applicability o that Ontario Court o

Appeal decision in Alberta was obliquelycalled into question at the Court o Queen’sBench level in the Elizabeth Metis Settlement case and, in any event their decision inEntrop was acknowledged by the OntarioCourt o Appeal to discuss principles o law

that exceeded the jurisdiction o the HumanRights Board o Inquiry which initially heardthe case − meaning that the Ontario Courto Appeal may (at least in theory) in a latercase, decline to ollow its own decision.Until the Supreme Court o Canada has anopportunity to rule on alcohol and drug

testing in the human rights context, the lawwill likely continue to have some uncertainty.

3. A recent decision o the British ColumbiaLabour Relations Board (Fraser Lake Sawmills Ltd. v. Industrial Wood and Allied Works o Canada) discussed rankly the act that thelaw in this area continues to develop, and theBoard urther commented that the correctresolution o a particular problem requiresan approach that is “just, practical, andresponsive to all o the dierent considerations

that may be relevant to the particular case”− a fexible approach that makes providingan opinion on a policy (which is, by nature,somewhat infexible) dicult.

Accordingly, the reader should seek legalcounsel to consider the specic acts o aparticular case to take into account laterdevelopments in the law, a consensus thatmay yet be reached by the courts, the uniqueissues present in the case, and possibleremedies available in the circumstances.

Related areas o law

It must be borne in mind that the legal andactual issues associated with drug andalcohol testing and human rights nd theirway to dierent kinds o tribunals in dierentcircumstances:

(a) a human rights tribunal (in Alberta, theAlberta Human Rights and CitizenshipCommission),

(b) a labour arbitrator or arbitration panel where

there is a collective agreement in place,

(c) both a human rights tribunal and anarbitrator or arbitration panel mightconcurrently be dealing with the same acts,

(d) the provincial employment standards agency(in Alberta, the Employment StandardsDivision o Alberta Human Resources andEmployment),

(e) small claims court (in Alberta, the AlbertaProvincial Court, Civil Division), and

() the superior courts o general jurisdiction (inAlberta, the Court o Queen’s Bench), eitheron a civil lawsuit, or on appeal rom thehuman rights tribunal, or review o a labourarbitration decision.



Accordingly, the diering practices, ocuses andopinions o these various tribunals will likelylead to many more years o development o thelaw surrounding drug and alcohol testing andhuman rights.

Opinion

The interaction between alcohol and drugtesting policies and human rights arises romthe act that a dependency on alcohol or drugsis a disability, and the human rights legislationin Alberta and elsewhere in Canada prohibitdiscrimination on the basis o either a mentaldisability or a physical disability. An alcoholand drug testing policy may eectively leadto a discrimination against an employee whohas a dependency on drugs or alcohol, i.e. adisability. Nonetheless, discrimination o thisnature may be permitted by the law, i thealcohol and drug testing policy is a “bona deoccupational requirement”, and i the employeraccommodates the disabled (dependent)employee “to the point o undue hardship”.

It must be noted that “accommodation” o adependent employee does not mean that anemployer must tolerate an impaired employee inthe workplace, especially where the employeeis in a saety-sensitive position. For example, theimpaired employee may be sent home. The issueshere relate to discipline, the employer’s right to

establish testing policies, and accommodatingthe disabled employee by allowing or (orproviding or) treatment and rehabilitation.

The question o whether an alcohol and drugtesting policy is in compliance with human rightslegislation involves an inquiry into areas such asthe ollowing:

(a) Has the employer created the policy in goodaith?

(b) Is there a rational connection between the

drug testing policy and the job?

(c) Does the policy provide or steps to be takenby the employer to try to accommodate thedependent worker, to the point o “unduehardship”?

(d) Are the tests sought to be perormedreasonable in all the circumstances?

(e) Does the policy properly weigh issuesrelating to the privacy o the employee andthe condentiality o the test results againstthe need to address positive test results?

We have reviewed the 2005 Policy and weare o the opinion that the Guiding Principlesand Alcohol and Drug Guidelines o the 2005Policy are in compliance with the Human Rights,Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act o Alberta.We have some reservations about the provisionsregarding random testing, discussed below, but

on balance we are o the opinion that the 2005Policy is in compliance with human rights law inAlberta as it has been pronounced by the courtsand human rights tribunals to date.

Work standards

There is really no issue regarding the rst,second and third bullet points under the heading“1.0 Work Standards” in the Alcohol and DrugGuidelines, which prohibit the use or distributiono alcohol, drugs or the misuse o prescriptiondrugs in the workplace. The issues primarilysurround testing and the consequences o apositive test.

Alcohol and drug testing

The 2005 Policy takes into account the actorsthat must be considered in policies o this nature,as required by the Supreme Court o Canada,and as stated by the Ontario Court o Appeal inEntrop v. Imperial Oil . They are the ollowing:

(a) the employer must have adopted the policy

or a purpose rationally connected to theperormance o the job,

(b) the employer must have adopted the policyin an honest and good aith belie thatit was necessary to the ullment o thatlegitimate work-related purpose, and

(c) the policy must be reasonably necessaryto the accomplishment o the legitimatework-related purpose. It must bedemonstrated that it is impossible toaccommodate individual employees sharing

the characteristics o the claimant withoutimposing undue hardship upon the employer.

Every job on a construction site has a saety-sensitive aspect to it. With saety concerns inmind, it is clear that the 2005 Policy satisesthe rst two requirements set out above. Inour view, it also satises the rst part o thethird requirement.

In respect o the latter part o the thirdrequirement, the 2005 Policy expressly addressesaccommodation o a worker suering romalcoholism or a drug addiction.



Random testing

Random testing is only permitted under the2005 Policy:

(a) o workers at work sites, and

(b) where all employees are covered by anemployee assistance service program.

It is our understanding that a “work site” orany o the workers covered by the CanadianModel will be a location where there arehazards and the worker is in a saety-sensitiveposition. To the extent that the CanadianModel may be adopted by employers andworkers outside the construction industry,consideration must be given as to whether the“work site” in question is one that has saetyhazards present. I it is not, random testing

would not be appropriate unless at least thenature o the work done by the individual maybe said to be “saety sensitive” regardless othe environment in which the work is done.

Although the Ontario Court o Appeal didnot approve o random drug testing in itsdecision in Entrop v. Imperial Oil , the AlbertaCourt o Queen’s Bench did authorize randomdrug testing in the circumstances present inAlberta v. Elizabeth Metis Settlement , and theCanadian Human Rights Tribunal also authorized

random drug testing procedures in Milazzo v.Autocar Connaisseur , provided that the duty toaccommodate had been met.

The question o whether random drug testingwill be allowed is one o the areas where the lawhas not yet been nally resolved. The reasonsin Entrop (where it was stated that randomdrug testing was not in compliance with humanrights law) were expressly acknowledged bythe Court to be given in a circumstance wherethere was no actual basis or the debate andno legal jurisdiction to resolve this issue. The

Elizabeth Metis Settlement case obliquelyquestioned the applicability o Entrop in Albertaand allowed random alcohol and drug testingin the circumstances o that case. In Milazzo ,the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal allowed apolicy to stand which provided or random drugtesting, provided the duty to accommodate wasappropriately recognized.

In Suncor Energy Inc. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 707 (PearsonGrievance) , (Jones, 2004), the arbitrator when

summarizing the union’s position, stated:

Further, the mere act that drug use is acommon problem among employees isnot sucient by itsel to justiy requiringany particular employee to undergo

drug testing ... . Requiring a drug testin such circumstances amounts to anunwarranted invasion o the employee’sprivacy. Arbitrators, human rightscommissions and the courts have almostuniversally rejected an employer’s abilityto require random drug testing: Entrop v.

Imperial Oil .

Arbitrator Jones’ paraphrase o the union’sposition was similar to a statement madeby Arbitrator Burkett in reasons in Trimac Transportation Services - Bulk Systems and T.C.U . in 1999.

However, o importance is that arbitrator Jonesdid not reer to either the Elizabeth Metis Settlement or the Milazzo decisions − both owhich preceded the release o his decision, andboth o which approved o random alcohol anddrug testing in the circumstances o those cases.

The duty to accommodate and the rightto discipline

The duty to accommodate has been expresslyaddressed in sections 4.2, 4.6, 5.1 and 5.2 o the2005 Policy. Section 5.1 requires the employer totake into account several relevant acts, including“the response to prior corrective programs”;it is clear that termination is not an automaticresponse to a violation. Under section 5.2.1, the

only circumstances where termination may besaid to be “automatic” is ailure to attend theassessment by a substance abuse expert, or toollow the course o corrective or rehabilitationaction. Even in this circumstance, termination isnot required, and the specic actors set out insection 5.1 should still be considered beore anemployee is dismissed. The need or fexibilitywas discussed by the arbitration panel in itsmajority decision in C.L.R. Operating Engineers v. International Union o Operating Engineers,Local 955 (Beattie, May 25, 2004).

The requirement o proper accommodationwas underscored in a recent case dealing withrandom testing: Halter v. Ceda-Reactor Limited ,(Alberta Human Rights Panel, May 16, 2005).In that case, the Panel Member ound that arandom test had been done on all workers inan attempt to catch those individuals whoseperormance on the job may have endangeredthe saety o the operation, and accordingly sheound that the random test was administered onthe premise that all workers were perceived tobe potential substance abusers. Thereore, she

ound that the test was discriminatory, ollowingthe Ontario Court o Appeal’s decision in Entrop .



However, citing the statements in Entrop that,

(a) “random drug testing or employees insaety-sensitive positions cannot be justiedas reasonably necessary to accomplishthe employer’s legitimate goal o a saeworkplace ree o impairment” and

(b) “stringent sanctions such as automatictermination or all employees ater a singlepositive test is too severe”, and

(c) “drug testing post incident or or causewas permissible only i the employer couldestablish that it was necessary as one aceto a larger assessment o drug abuse”,

the Panel Member then concluded that therewas no evidence that Ceda-Reactor’s policyprovided or a proper reerral to a medical

proessional or assessment and rehabilitation, inecessary, and stated that:

it is initiatives such as these that thePanel would perceive as meeting therequirement that testing be one acet o alarger assessment o drug use.

This conclusion seemed to be that randomtesting o workers in saety-sensitive positionsmay be acceptable to this Panel Member ithere is a proper assessment and rehabilitationprogram incorporated in the policy. Our opinion

is that the 2005 Policy meets this standard.

In the 2005 Policy, a positive test result meansnon-compliance with the Policy (section 4.9.1)and this may lead to discipline or termination(section 5.1). However, prior to making a naldecision on disciplining or terminating anemployee, the employee must be directed to anassessment by a substance abuse expert (section5.2) who shall make recommendations. Theinitial assessment is to be completed as soonas possible and the report delivered within two

days o completion (section 5.2.1). Thereore,although the employee is suspended or thisperiod without pay provided this timeline isollowed, the impact on the employee is minimali the assessment is that there is no dependenceon alcohol or a drug.

I there is no dependence, then there is nohuman rights violation because there is nodisability: Chiasson v. Kellogg, Brown & Root (Canada) Company , (Alberta Human RightsPanel, June 7, 2005). I there is a dependence,then the employee will be reerred to treatment

and only i he reuses to ollow the correctiveor rehabilitative program recommendedis termination automatic (section 5.2.1).Otherwise, the appropriate discipline dependson the acts o the case (section 5.1).

The 2005 Policy mandates providingaccommodation to the dependent employee,and accordingly the third requirement hasbeen satised.

Discretion

It should be noted that the 2005 Policy providesor discretion in its application, and the exerciseo that discretion cannot be done without dueregard to the law. For example, in section 5.1the orm o discipline to be enorced will dependupon several actors set out therein. As well,the choice o appropriate discipline in everycase must be made in accordance with thestatements o law pronounced by the courts,human rights tribunals and labour arbitratorsrom time to time.

The act that the 2005 Policy contemplates a

possible specic orm o discipline (eg. dismissal)or a specic breach o the policy (eg. reusalto submit to a drug and alcohol test) does notnecessarily mean that that orm o disciplineshould be considered to ollow automatically.The provisions dealing with “just cause” ina collective agreement and the principles atcommon law must still be complied with inthe circumstances o the case: J.D. Irving Ltd.v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers’ Union, Local 104 and 1309 (Drug and Alcohol Policy Grievance), 111 L.A.C. (4th) 328 (Picher,

2002). (However, it should be noted that anemployee’s reusal to submit to a drug test,and the employer’s decision to dismiss, wereound not to violate human rights laws in theElizabeth Metis Settlement case at the Court oQueen’s Bench level (reversed by the Court oAppeal o Alberta on other grounds), and to justiy dismissal with cause in Fluor ConstructorsCanada Ltd. and I.B.E.W., Local 424, andConstruction Labour Relations and C.J.A., Locals1325 and 2103 (Beattie, 2001).)

O course, in order to exercise discretionproperly, a thorough investigation o the actsmust be done. Failure to perorm a thoroughinvestigation may lead to a fawed decision asto whether it is reasonable to require testing oras to the appropriate discipline. I that decisionis fawed, subsequent discipline or ailure tocomply with the requirement o a test will notwithstand challenge. See C.L.R. OperatingEngineers, supra, and C.L.R. Operating Engineersv. International Association o Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local Union#110 (Beattie, Oct. 26, 2004).



Statute and case law

Attached to this letter is a Schedule listingand summarizing the relevant sections o theHuman Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (Alberta) and the Charter o Rights and Freedoms, and the leading Canadian cases

dealing with alcohol and drug testing. Reerenceshould be made to it to assist the reader inunderstanding this opinion, particularly where Ihave reerred to a particular court, human rightstribunal, arbitration panel, or labour relationsboard decision.

I trust you will nd the oregoing to besatisactory.

Yours truly,

MACLEOD DIXON llp

ANDREW R. ROBERTSON

/ll

Enclosure



SCHEDULE

The Human Rights, Citizenship andMulticulturalism Act

In Alberta, the applicable sections o the humanrights legislation are the ollowing:

7 (1) No employer shall

(a) reuse to employ or reuse tocontinue to employ any person, or

(b) discriminate against any person withregard to employment or any term orcondition o employment,

because o the race, religious belies,colour, gender, physical disability, mentaldisability, age, ancestry, place o origin,

marital status, source o income oramily status o that person or o anyother person.

(2) …

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply withrespect to a reusal, limitation,specication or preerence based on abona de occupational requirement.

8 (1) No person shall use or circulate any ormo application or employment or publish

any advertisement in connection withemployment or prospective employmentor make any written or oral inquiry o anapplicant

(a) that expresses either directlyor indirectly any limitation,specication or preerence indicatingdiscrimination on the basis o …physical disability, mental disability …o that person or o any other person,or

(b) that requires an applicant to urnishany inormation concerning…physical disability, mental disability ….

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply withrespect to a reusal, limitation,specication or preerence based on abona de occupational requirement.

11 A contravention o this Act shallbe deemed not to have occurred ithe person who is alleged to have

contravened the Act shows that thealleged contravention was reasonable and justiable in the circumstances.

44 (1) In this Act,

…

(h) “mental disability” means any mentaldisorder, developmental disorder orlearning disorder, regardless o the

cause or duration o the disorder;

…

(l) “physical disability” means any degreeo physical disability, inrmity,malormation or disgurement that iscaused by bodily injury, birth deector illness and, without limiting thegenerality o the oregoing, includesepilepsy, paralysis, amputation, lacko physical co-ordination, blindnessor visual impediment, deaness or

hearing impediment, muteness orspeech impediment, and physicalreliance on a guide dog, wheelchairor other remedial appliance or device

It is universally accepted that an addiction toalcohol or a drug is a disease, and thereorea disability.

In the area o human rights legislation, theSupreme Court o Canada has made it clearthat slightly dierent wording in legislationin dierent provinces will not be interpreteddierently, where it is possible to ascribe acommon meaning to similar provisions: Montreal (City) v. Quebec (Commission des Droits de laPersonne), 185 D.L.R. (4th) 385, paras. 45 and46. Accordingly, the courts and human rightstribunals are likely to adopt decisions rom otherCanadian jurisdictions, even though the precisewording o the legislation may be dierent.

Canadian Charter o Rights andFreedoms

The Supreme Court has stated that, “Whilethere is no requirement that the provisionso [provincial human rights legislation] mirrorthose o the Canadian Charter [o Rightsand Freedoms], they must nevertheless beinterpreted in light o the Canadian Charter”:Montreal (City), supra, para. 42.

Section 15(1) o the Canadian Charter o Rightsand Freedoms provides as ollows:

Every individual is equal beore and underthe law and has the right to the equalprotection and equal benet o the lawwithout discrimination and, in particular,without discrimination based on …mental or physical disability.



Case law

A summary o the leading cases is set outbelow, in the chronological sequence o theirrelease, to assist the reader in understanding thedevelopment o the law up to this time.

1. Toronto Dominion Bank v. CanadianHuman Rights Commission, 163 D.L.R.(4th) 193 (Fed. C.A. 1998).

In this very early “drug testing” case, the Bank’spolicy required mandatory drug testing o all newand returning employees. Employees who reusedto submit to the test were dismissed. Employeeswho tested positive and were drug dependentwere oered rehabilitation services (at the Bank’sexpense), but could lose their employment ithey reused to take advantage o the servicesor i rehabilitation eorts proved unsuccessul.

Casual users who tested positive on at least threeoccasions could also lose their jobs.

The Federal Court o Appeal ound the Bank’smandatory drug-testing policy was a prohibiteddiscriminatory practice. Although the testsmentioned below or determining whether aparticular policy is in compliance with humanrights law had not yet been clearly enunciated,it is probably correct to say that the consistentreasoning between the two members o thecourt who agreed in the result (but not as to

all o their reasons) was that the policy was not“reasonably necessary” to achieve the intendedpurpose o obtaining a drug-ree workplace.

This decision is not a strong precedent or ourcurrent purposes because o the ollowing actors:

(a) the case was decided using a“direct discrimination / adversediscrimination” analysis laterabandoned by the Supreme Courto Canada;

(b) there were no “saety-sensitive”employees involved, so the risk oaccident causing injury or physicaldamage was not a consideration;

(c) there does not appear to have beenan incident, accident, positive testresult or reusal to take the testthat led to the court challenge: itwas brought by the Canadian CivilLiberties Association, meaning thatthe case was heard and decided

without a clear actual basis andapparently without expert evidenceas to the drugs involved, their eecton workers, or appropriate treatment.

2. Procor Sulphur Services and C.E.P, Loc. 57 79 L.A.C. (4th) 341 Ponak, (1998).

In this arbitration case, a saety-sensitive employeehad been convicted o possession and cultivationo marijuana, and the employer − who did nothave a ormal drug testing policy − had required

mandatory random drug tests over a period otwo years. The employee led a grievance.

The arbitration panel concluded that in light othe conviction or cultivation o marijuana andpossession o signicant quantities o the drug,as well as the saety-sensitive position held bythe employee, random testing was appropriate,although the panel reduced the period overwhich random testing would be allowed.

The arbitration panel stated the ollowing:

Except in the most saety-sensitive opositions, or where the law requires it(and these may be one and the same),this does not give an employer the rightto test employees at will. Reasonableand probable grounds must exist o animpairment risk …. The value placed onour personal privacy generally outweighsthe right to test simply because someemployees, sometimes might be abusingalcohol or drugs and coming to workimpaired. The balance is however when

an employer has good reason to suspectthat the risk actor o impairment hasbeen increased or an employee whooccupies a saety-sensitive position.

The panel had considered, as an alternative,reerral to the employee assistance plan. Theyrejected this alternative because the employeewas adamant that he did not have a drugproblem and this denial did not make him agood candidate or such reerral, which wouldrequire voluntary participation.

3. Trimac Transportation Services - Bulk Systems and T.C.U., 88 L.A.C. (4th) 237(Burkett 1999).

This labour arbitration decision was decidedapproximately seven months beore the OntarioCourt o Appeal decision in Entrop v. Imperial Oil, but relied in part on the Ontario DivisionalCourt decision in Entrop which was partlyreversed at the Court o Appeal level.

The sole arbitrator noted that in an earlierinterim award he ound that he lacked jurisdiction to deal with pre-employment drugand alcohol testing, so the decision ocused onlyon mandatory random drug and alcohol testing,and whether it violated the collective agreement.



The employer was a trucking company, and thepolicy required mandatory random testing oits drivers. The arbitrator ound that it violatedthe collective agreement. The arbitrator notedthat there was not a single incident rom 1990to 1996 where a driver had been ound underthe infuence while operating a company vehicle.

He recognized that the introduction o testinghad led to the reduction in positive results orboth pre-employment and random testing andthe rate o “positives” was lower than at leastsome other Canadian trucking rms, but thata positive drug test result does not establishpresent impairment.

The arbitrator ocused on balancing theemployer’s right to investigate suspectedwrongdoing with the employee’s right topersonal privacy. He reviewed arbitrator awards

to date and stated:

There is not a single award, thereore,that has given eect to an employerright to implement mandatory randomdrug testing. In every case, the employerinterest in implementing such a regimehas been ound insucient to justiythe intrusion into employee privacysuch that its policy has been renderedunenorceable.

He reused to consider evidence o drug use

as it relates to the general population at large,to the trucking industry generally, or to otheroperations o the employer, as establishinga justication or the implementation omandatory random drug testing.

O great signicance in this case is that theunion had not agreed to the random drugtesting policy; management attempted to justiythe policy under the “management rights”clause in the collective agreement. Without the union’s agreement , the arbitrator ound therandom testing policy unenorceable.

Considering human rights legislation, thearbitrator also concluded that the policy was not“reasonable”, and thereore not enorceable.

4. Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd ., 50 O.R. (3d) 18(C.A. 2000).

This case began as a series o decisions by aBoard o Inquiry dealing with a complaint byan employee who was employed in a saety-sensitive position and who was required, by

Imperial Oil’s policy, to disclose that he was arecovering alcoholic. He had not had a drink inover seven years, but when his prior history oalcohol abuse was disclosed, he was reassignedto another job.

The policy was ound to violate Ontario’shuman rights legislation, and that decision wasappealed to the Ontario Divisional Court andthen to the Court o Appeal.

O importance is that there were none o theollowing actors present in the case:

(a) an incident such as a near miss,

(b) an accident,

(c) any drug use at all, or

(d) any objective basis to think there hadbeen any impairment by alcohol or adrug at work.

Nonetheless, the Board o Inquiry launched intoa complete analysis o Imperial Oil’s alcohol anddrug testing policy.

The Court o Appeal ound that the Board oInquiry (Ms. Constance Backhouse, sitting alone)did not have the jurisdiction to address most othe issues that she did, but in light o the act thatthe issues had already been argued beore theBoard, the Divisional Court, and now the Courto Appeal, that Court also addressed all o theissues, although there was no actual applicationon which to base most o the analysis.

The Court ound that the alcohol and drugtesting policy was, on its ace, discriminatory −in violation o the human rights legislation.

The Court adopted a three-step test thatthe Supreme Court o Canada had set out inMeorin, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3 to determine whethera standard (in this case, the alcohol and drugpolicy) that was, on its ace, discriminatory, a“bona fde occupational requirement”. I thealcohol and drug policy is ound to be a bona deoccupational requirements then it was justied.

The test or this is:

(1) the employer must have adoptedthe policy or a purpose rationallyconnected to the perormance o the job,

(2) the employer must have adoptedthe policy in an honest and goodaith belie that it was necessaryto the ullment o that legitimatework-related purpose, and

(3) the policy must be reasonablynecessary to the accomplishment othe legitimate work-related purpose.It must be demonstrated that it isimpossible to accommodate individualemployees sharing the characteristicso the claimant without imposingundue hardship upon the employer.



In simpler terms, and in the context o a policydesigned to reach an alcohol and drug-reeworkplace, the test may be summarized this way:

(1) there must be a rational connectionbetween the policy and the job,

(2) the policy must have been created ingood aith,

(3) the policy must be reasonablynecessary to achieve an alcohol anddrug-ree workplace, and

(4) there must be no other practicalalternative to accommodating thedisabled (in this case, addicted)person without “undue hardship”.

The Court had little diculty accepting that the

rst two steps o the test had been met. Thediscussion ocused on the third test.

The Court had little diculty with alcoholtesting. It has long been accepted thatbreathalyser and other tests provide results thatshow a very strong correlation with impairment.

The same was ound not to be true o drug testing.A positive test or drugs does not demonstrateimpairment, it only demonstrates relatively recent(within a ew weeks) use o the drug.

The Court ound pre-employment drug testingand random drug testing is in violation o thehuman rights legislation because it cannotmeasure present impairment and also becausethe sanction or ailing pre-employment andrandom drug testing was too severe or thosein saety-sensitive positions: reusal to hire ortermination o employment. The “no presence”o drug metabolics was ound to be “tooarbitrary”.

Alcohol testing, in contrast, was ound to be a

reasonable requirement but only i Imperial Oilmet its duty to accommodate in the orm osupporting a treatment or rehabilitation program.

Post-accident, incident or near miss alcoholtesting was ound to be reasonable, andpost-accident, incident or near miss drug testingwas also ound to be reasonable “i Imperial Oilcould establish that it was necessary as one aceto a larger assessment o drug abuse” − a actorthat was let unexplained.

Both alcohol and drug testing or certication or

saety-sensitive positions and post-reinstatementwere ound permissible i Imperial Oil “canestablish that testing is necessary as one aceto a larger process o assessment” o alcohol ordrug abuse.

5. Construction Labour Relations and C.J.A.,Locals 1325 and 2103, 96 L.A.C. (4th)343 Beattie, (2001).

In this arbitration decision, the ormer version othe policy currently under review was the policybeing addressed. A worker employed by Kellogg

Brown & Root had a minor accident with a knie,required ve stitches to his hand, and could notexplain the accident except that it was “silly”and “stupid”. He was asked to take the alcoholand drug test, in accordance with the policy,because use o alcohol or drugs could not beruled out. He reused, because (as he asserted)he was a recreational user o marijuana.

He was dismissed and he led a grievance.

The dismissal was upheld and those applicableprovisions o the policy were ound to be

enorceable.

O great importance to the arbitration panel wasthat the union had endorsed the policy , whichwas viewed by both parties, and the industry, asvery important in ensuring saety on the worksite. The panel noted that:

It is not dicult to imagine circumstancesin which, particularly given a Unionendorsed Policy, the Employer couldbe aulted or not having insisted on

a test o a person who subsequentlyacknowledged being a user o marijuana.

(My emphasis)

The grievance was dismissed.

6. Fluor Constructors Canada Ltd. and I.B.E.W., Local 424 (Elliott, 2001).

This arbitration award also dealt with a demand ora drug test and the employee’s reusal under theCanadian Model or Providing a Sae Workplace.

An employee was reported to have said toanother person that he used marijuana everynight. He was required to take an alcohol anddrug test but he reused. He was dismissed andhe grieved. His grievance was dismissed.

The arbitrator reviewed the history o theCanadian Model as it was drated at that time,and noted that the issue was whether therewas just cause or dismissal, not whether hewas considering issues o discrimination or oa bona de occupational requirement deence.

He noted that the Canadian Model had beenadopted, by reerence, as part o the CollectiveAgreement. Accordingly, he was o the view thatthe right to intrude on an employee’s privacy byrequesting a drug test in certain circumstanceshad been agreed to.



The arbitrator reviewed the decision o ArbitratorBurkett in Trimac Transportation Services anddistinguished it, because in the Trimac caseArbitrator Burkett’s rule applied only “absentexpress language in the collective agreement”,and in the case beore him Arbitrator Elliottound that there was “express language”, in the

orm o the Canadian Model.

He also commented about “shiting values”in society:

I view the Canadian Model as seekingto create a new environment in theconstruction industry. The new training,educational, rehabilitative regime, andthe rules or testing, signal a change inthe industry as signicant in its way asdrinking/driving laws were or drivingCanadians.

It should be noted that the Canadian Model, asit was drated at that time, did not provide orrandom drug testing.

7. J.D. Irving Ltd. v. Communications,Energy and Paperworkers’ Union, Local 104 and 1309 (Drug and Alcohol Policy Grievance), 111 L.A.C. (4th) 328 (Picher,2002).

This case involved a union grievance relating toan employer-imposed alcohol and drug policy.The policy was generally ound to be valid.

The arbitration panel considered the denitiono “saety-sensitive” and rejected the union’ssubmission that a position should not be consideredto be “saety-sensitive” where the worker is underthe ongoing supervision o oremen or supervisors.The panel stated as ollows:

In our view or the purposes o drugand alcohol testing the identicationo saety-sensitive positions is more

useully achieved by asking whatconsequences are risked i the personperorming a particular kind o workdoes so impaired by drugs or alcohol. Inthe case o a person with entirely clericalunctions there may be no meaningulrisk o adverse consequences, romthe standpoint o the saety o otheremployees, the public or o the propertyand equipment o the employer, or oanyone else. Conversely, i the answer tothe question is that the perormance othe job by a person impaired by drugs oralcohol risks the saety o the employee,other employees or persons generally, orthe saety o property and equipment,the work must be recognized as saetysensitive, regardless o the degree osupervision which may attach.

In any industrial enterprise, a policy asimportant as the drug and alcohol policyunder consideration in this case musthave clear parameters o application.Whether a particular task is qualiedas saety sensitive cannot, in our view,be made to depend on the number o

supervisors on duty, much less on suchunpredictable actors as whether asupervisor is called away to a meeting,or to deal with a problem elsewhere inthe plant at any given point in time. It isthe work o the employee, the nature othe equipment that he or she operatesand the nature o the material he or shehandles which must be at the core othe determination o whether his or herposition is saety sensitive.

It should be stressed that the oregoingapproach to this issue does not,obviously, give the Company carteblanche in dening saety-sensitivepositions. Whether a position is saetysensitive or the purposes o the policymust be determined on a case-by-casebasis, having regard or the actorstouched upon above.

8. Fraser Lake Sawmills Ltd. v. IWA Canada,Local I-424, 2003 CLLC 143, 417(B.C.L.R.B.).

This was a decision in December o 2002 bythe B.C. Labour Relations Board. The Boardrefected on the act that the “common lawo arbitration” in connection with addictionin the workplace is in a state o development,and noted that where workplace misconductis related to an addiction, it is oten a “hybrid”mix o causes, being a mix o addiction-drivenconduct (which is non-culpable) and voluntaryconduct (which is culpable conduct).

The Board also noted that addiction is atreatable illness and the individual has aresponsibility in respect o his treatment in thecontext o the employer’s duty to accommodate.

Reerring to a decision o the B.C. Court oAppeal in Canadian Airlines International Ltd.v. C.A.L.P.A., [1998] 1 W.W.R. 609, wherean arbitrator had reinstated a pilot dismissedor using marijuana both on and o duty andtransporting it via the company aircrat, theBoard noted that the Court o Appeal hadreminded the labour relations community that

there are limits to what can be tolerated andound to be reasonable, particularly in respect tosaety-sensitive matters.



The Board quoted, with apparent approvala passage rom an early arbitration decision(Raven Lumber Ltd ., 23 L.A.C. (3d) 357(Munroe, 1986)):

However, i an employee’s alcoholismcannot per se be regarded as a proper

basis or his dismissal, nor can itbe allowed to actually enhance theemployee’s tenure.

As the Board put it:

The presence o an addiction ordependency does not necessarilyimmunize an employee rom disciplinaryor corrective action. The extent to whichan individual should be held responsibleor workplace misconduct needs tobe reached having regard to all the

circumstances o the case.

The circumstances that the Board said should betaken into account by arbitrators in reviewingdisciplinary steps taken against employeeswhose misbehaviour is related to a dependencyare the ollowing:

(a) the special nature o the disease oaddiction in relation to the speciccircumstances o the cases,

(b) the compulsion associated with anaddiction,

(c) the nature and seriousness o themisconduct,

(d) the impact beyond the individualgrievor, including the risk posed tothe employer and the impact onothers in the workplace such asemployees or the public,

(e) the need or deterrence,

() the employer’s eorts to help theemployee deal with the addiction,

(g) steps taken by the employee to dealwith the disease,

(h) the grievor’s employment record, and

(i) other relevant considerations.

The Board stated that arbitrators must beallowed fexibility “to approach uses oaddiction-related misconduct in a manner thatis just, practical, and responsive to all o thedierent considerations that may be relevant tothe particular case”.

9. Alberta v. Elizabeth Metis Settlement , 19Alta. L.R. (4th) 71 (Q.B. 2003), reversedon other grounds, May 20, 2005 (C.A.).

The Court o Queen’s Bench dismissed anappeal rom a decision o a Human Rights andCitizenship Commission Panel Member who had

dismissed two complaints arising rom reusalto take workplace alcohol and drug tests. Thetwo employees were not in saety-sensitivepositions except or some occasional driving.The case does not seem to have been decidedwith particular emphasis on the basis o theemployees occupying saety-sensitive decisions.

A remote Metis settlement had seriousproblems with alcohol and drug abuse in thecommunity. The Metis Settlement Council hadintroduced alcohol and drug testing as a meanso addressing the community-wide problems,because there was a perception that Councilsta were users, were under the infuence, orwere missing work due to drug or alcohol use.The Council wanted its employees to be on theirbest behaviour.

One o the employees who reused had a knownhistory o addiction problems. The other did not.

The Court concluded that their dismissal orreusing “random” alcohol and drug testswas justied.

Although the Alberta Court indirectlyquestioned whether the Entrop decisionrepresents the law in Alberta (she said, “Tothe extent that Entrop applies at all in Alberta…”) the court generally ollowed the OntarioCourt o Appeal’s approach in its analysis,but noted that public inormation and policiescreated by the Director o the Human Rights andCitizenship Commission based on the decision inEntrop do not have the orce o law. As well, the judge said that those public inormation sheetsand policies o the Alberta Human Rights and

Citizen Commission “considerably overstate theconclusions” reached in Entrop.

The alcohol and drug policy oered treatmentto those who ailed the tests. The Settlementhad a history o unding substance abuserehabilitation. The Court ound it dicult toault an employer or ailing to oer appropriatedrug or alcohol treatment to someone who hadreused the test, based only on a presumptionthat the employee must have some type osubstance abuse problem − merely because she

reused the test.



O importance is that the tests were close tobeing random tests, but were not “random”tests as is usually contemplated. The employeeswere given about three weeks’ notice. Theyreused. There were given approximately twoweeks’ notice o a urther test requirement.They reused, and then they were dismissed.

The Metis Settlement’s policy stated as ollows:

As part o the Drug and Alcohol Policy,[the Settlement] may conduct theollowing types o drug and alcoholtesting: …

c) Reasonable Cause:

Where a supervisor has reasonablecause to believe an employee hasacted in contravention o this Policy …

g) Periodic or Site Specic Testing

Where due to the nature o sensitivework assignments, employees whose job duties could aect personalsaety, co-workers saety, the saetyo the public or the saety o theenvironment …

An employee who: …..

b) reuses to submit to an alcohol / drug

test … is in violation o this Policyand is subject to disciplinary actionincluding termination o employmentor cause ….

The Court reerred to other provisions in the policythat provided or the potential or “urther randomdrug / alcohol testing” ater reinstatement.

This reerence is signicant because althoughthere is very little analysis o why these “randomdrug / alcohol” tests were ound to be abona de occupational requirement, whenthe Ontario Court o Appeal had stated inEntrop that random drug tests were not, theconclusion seems clear: where there is somecompelling reason arising rom circumstances, apolicy allowing random alcohol and drug testswill be ound to be a bona fde occupationalrequirement. In this case, the uniquecircumstances o (a) a remote community,(b) with a serious addiction problem in thecommunity, (c) where the only jobs, to a greatextent, were working or the Settlement, and(d) those who held even clerical positions were

role models or the community, the policy was justied, and so was the dismissal o those whoreused the test.

On May 20, 2005, the Court o Appeal oAlberta reversed the decision, on the groundsthat the Court o Queen’s Bench had notconsidered the threshold issue o whether thepolicy applied to the Complainants (that iswhether there was a basis or demanding thetests at all), and remitted the case back to a

human rights Panel Member or rehearing togive the Settlement an opportunity to justiy thedemands on other grounds.

10. Milazzo v. Autocar Connaisseur Inc .,[2003] C.H.R.D. No. 24.

This decision o the Canadian Human RightsTribunal in late 2003 arose out o a complaint bya coach driver, Mr. Milazzo, who was dismissedater the results o a drug test came back positiveor marijuana metabolites. When he was toldthe results o the drug test, Mr. Milazzo said hewas “ready to go to rehab or what happened,”but although he testied at the human rightshearing, he gave no evidence that he sueredrom a drug-related disability. No attempt wasmade by the employer to ascertain whether Mr.Milazzo suered rom a substance abuse disorderor was merely a casual user o marijuana.

Oddly, the decision says that Autocar viewedMr. Milazzo’s test as a “pre-employment”test, although at the time o the drug test hehad worked or the company about ve years.

Apparently his pre-employment test, required bythe policy, had been missed. The test appearedto Mr. Milazzo to have been part o a move totest all drivers. Until then, only drivers who droveto the U.S. had been tested because o the U.S.requirements to test coach drivers. In any event,the policy required random alcohol and drug tests.

Signicant expert testimony on drug use,addiction and treatment was presented by bothAutocar and the Human Rights Commission. Thisactor is important, because the expert evidencepresented conficts with the statements aboutdrug testing in the Entrop case. In particular,the expert or the employer stated that it isimprobable that an individual who was a casualuser would still test positive or the presenceo cannabis metabolites even ve days aterhis last use. Mr. Milazzo claimed his last usewas “several weeks” beore the test. I thiswere true, the continuing presence o cannabismetabolite in his urine suggested long-term use.

The Tribunal ound that the evidence did notestablish that Autocare perceived Mr. Milazzo to

suer rom a drug-related disability. This is alsoimportant, because in both Entrop and ElizabethMetis Settlement the Courts presumed that theemployer perceived that any employee whotested positive suered rom a dependence.



The evidence demonstrated that there had beena history o drivers abusing alcohol or drugs; thatthe workplace was somewhat transient; thatsince the drivers were oten out o town theiractivities were dicult to monitor; that driversoccasionally had to take routes to the U.S.(where testing is mandatory); and the evidence

suggested that the use o drugs by drivers in thetransportation industry is a real problem, withsignicant implications or public saety.

The Tribunal concluded that a positive drugtest result is a “red fag”, assisting in identiyingdrivers who are at an elevated risk o accident.As well, the presence o a drug testing policywill serve to deter employees rom using alcoholor drugs in the workplace.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that Autocar’sdrug testing policy was reasonably necessary.

Nonetheless, the Tribunal ound the policyto be lacking because it did not allow or theaccommodation o dependent employees. Thepre-employment testing was allowed, but theemployer was not entitled to automaticallywithdraw oers o employment without rstaddressing the issue o accommodation. Theyrecognized that no accommodation may bepossible in some cases, such as in the case o ashort-term hiring.

The random testing was allowed, providedthe policy was amended to allow oraccommodation by rehabilitation o thoseemployees who can establish that they suerrom a substance-related disability.

As Mr. Milazzo had not proven that he had adisability, his personal complaint was dismissed.

11. Suncor Energy Inc. v. Communications,Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 707, [2004] A.G.A.A. No. 35 (Jones).

In this grievance arbitration, an employee in asaety-sensitive position was dismissed aterreusing to submit to an alcohol and drug test atera minor accident, ollowing a mediated returnto work arising rom a charge o possession omarijuana and psilocybin (“magic mushrooms”).He asserted that the requirement oended humanrights legislation, although he insisted that he didnot have a substance-abuse problem.

In light o his insistence that he did not havea substance-abuse problem, the arbitratorheld that the employer did not have a duty toaccommodate. The employer also did not believethat he had a substance-abuse problem.

In the circumstances o this case, hisprior mediated return to work specicallycontemplated that the employer would have theright to test the grievor on demand in the evento any incident that raised a reasonable suspicionthat he might have been impaired at work.

The grievance was dismissed.

12. Construction Labour Relations v.International Union o OperatingEngineers, Local 955 (Beattie, May 25,2004).

This grievance arose rom a dismissal o anemployee with no record o discipline or saetyinractions ater a “near miss”, where a cranehe was operating knocked o a live elevatedlight xture in a potentially dangerous area. Hereused an alcohol and drug test required by the

employer under the Canadian Model.

The arbitration panel noted that termination isnot the only disciplinary response to a reusalto test.

The employer’s investigation into the incidentwas ound to be “perunctory”. There wasno consideration o whether there were“reasonable grounds” or not requiring a test,and, i there had been, the employee shouldnot have been required to test. Given the

supercial investigation and the recognized needor a subsequent more detailed “root cause”investigation, the grievor should have beensuspended or his reusal to test pending the“root cause” investigation.

The employee was re-instated.

13. Construction Labour Relations v.International Association o Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers,Local 110 (Beattie, October 26, 2004).

This grievance award arose rom a dismissal oworkers who reused a urine test (alcohol anddrug) ater been accused o smoking marijuanaduring their lunch break.

A security guard was ound to have beencoerced into writing a alse report stating thatshe had smelled marijuana.

In light o the obviously fawed investigation, thegrievors were re-instated.



14. Halter v. Ceda-Reactor Limited , (AlbertaHuman Rights Panel, May 16, 2005).

The employer conducted a drug test on allmembers o a work crew on the basis thatdrug use amongst some o the workers wassuspected. The Complainant had been using

marijuana regularly or several months, and(along with six others o a total o 14 workers)tested positive or cannabis metabolites. Heled a human rights complaint when he wasterminated rom his position.

There was no direct evidence o dependenceon marijuana, and the case was assessed romthe perspective o perceived dependence. ThePanel Member concluded that the “randomtest was administered on the premise thatall members o [the crew] were perceived tobe potential substance abusers.” The PanelMember reerenced Entrop, but the decisionultimately rested on the ailure o the employerto accommodate the Complainant when hetested positive because the policy in questiondid not have “a comprehensive, inclusive policywhich has a range o components necessary tomeet the requirements established in Entrop”,and because the Employer took no other stepsto accommodate him: no oer o assistancewas made, and no re-allocation to a non-saety-sensitive position until he could demonstrate adrug-ree sample.

15. Chiasson v. Kellogg, Brown & Root (Canada) Company , (Alberta HumanRights Panel Member, June 7, 2005).

The Complainant had been required to undergoa pre-employment alcohol and drug test as acondition o his employment but was allowedto commence work awaiting the results o thetest. The results were positive or cannabismetabolites and he was terminated. He led ahuman rights complaint.

The Panel Member heard evidence rom himthat he was only a recreational cannabis userand no evidence to the contrary was presented.As well, there was nothing to show that theemployer suspected him o serious drug use or owork impairment. As there was no evidence oa disability, real or perceived, the Complaint wasdismissed. The Panel commented that i he hadshown a disability then the Meorin test would nothave been met because (quoting rom Milazzo ),“employers are not entitled to automaticallywithdraw oers o employment, without rst

addressing the issue o accommodation.”

(This case is scheduled to be heard by the AlbertaCourt o Queen’s Bench on appeal rom thedecision o the Panel Member on November 8,2005.)



ME D I C A L O P I N I O N

Independent

Medical Opinion



INDEPENDENT MEDICAL OPINION


One o the core diculties with drug andalcohol policies or the workplace is the act thatlegal, legislative and human rights concerns all

intersect with research and clinical medicine.These elds o endeavour are not alwayscompatible and, in the past, have suered roma lack o mutual understanding. In an eort todeal with some o the misunderstandings, theConstruction Owners Association o Alberta(COAA) has added a medical opinion to itsCanadian Model or Providing a Sae Workplace, (hereinater reerred to as the Canadian Model)to help delineate the current state-o-the-artthinking in addiction medicine. The explicit goalin this policy is twoold: rstly, to ensure a sae

workplace or all individuals, and secondly, toidentiy individuals who may be suering romthe disease o addiction and oer them thehelp they need to recover. This policy is not anattempt to dictate any moral position regardingpsychoactive drugs, nor is it an eort to identiyor purposes o discrimination, psychoactivedrug users.

Firstly, in terms o medical thinking, the useo psychoactive drugs must be reviewed.Current thinking suggests that there is aheterogeneous population o psychoactivedrug users in our society. A small group usethese drugs, and continue to use these drugs,in a way that causes negative consequencesor them and others around them. Despitethese negative consequences, use continuesand may even escalate. Gradually, overtime, the individual using in such a ashionexperiences loss o control around the amounto substances consumed and the timing orplace o consumption. This loss o control isloosely reerred to as “addiction”. The usermay also experience withdrawal symptoms

when the drug is stopped, leading to thediagnosis o “dependency”. The loose andcolloquial use o these terms has caused someconusion. It is the opinion expressed in thispolicy that “addiction” and thereby the disabilityinerred by such a term, should be diagnosedbased on loss o control rather than physicaldependency. Research has shown that chronicopiate users who take the drug or chronic painmay experience physical dependency withoutloss o control over time, place or amount ousage. They would reasonably be determined

to be “dependent” but not addicted. The vastmajority o users o recreational or prescribedpsychoactive substances maintain controlover amount, time or place o consumption,and although their patterns o use may,on occasion, be abusive and have negative

consequences, they are not addicted. One othe major weaknesses o some o the legislativeapproaches to psychoactive substance useis a ailure to understand the two separatepopulations. Not all users o psychoactivedrugs are addicts, and thereore not all users opsychoactive drugs can be reasonably termed to

have a disability.

The use o psychoactive substances is generallyunderstood in addiction medicine to involvestimulation o certain brain pathways mostnotably (but not exclusively) the dopamineneurotransmitter system, and to stimulatecertain key centers in the brain. The clustero nerve cells which is attracting the mostresearch attention is the area called the nucleusaccumbens in the brain stem. Current evidencesuggests that stimulating the nucleus accumbens

produces a potent pleasurable sensation orthe human. Most psychoactive drugs stimulatethe release o dopamine and cause the nucleusaccumbens to be stimulated. The resultingpowerul pleasurable eect causes behaviouralreinorcement in the human, and tends to inducerepeat drug use. Like other pleasurable events inlie, such as sexual activity or consuming ood,or most o the population this consumptionremains under their control and this pleasure-seeking behaviour can be deerred, indenitelyi necessary, as lie circumstances demand. For asmall percentage o the population, three to six

per cent o all consumers o ethanol or instance,their brains appear to be “wired dierently”.This is an area o very active medical researchand we do not yet know the exact geneticsor brain circuitry involved in the disease oalcohol addiction. It does appear, currently, thatapproximately two thirds o alcoholism can beaccounted or by genetics1. Research in otherpsychoactive drugs lags behind that o alcoholand so these questions remain open or suchdrugs as marijuana.

Drug use and work

In terms o drug use and the work site, thereare a number o social and legislative issueswhich cause workplaces to become concernedabout psychoactive drug use. Most notable othese is saety o sel and others. It has beenwell recognized throughout history that variouspsychoactive drugs impair an individual’s abilityto move, think and exercise prudent judgmentin order to remain sae and avoid harmingsel or others. Again, the drug with which weare most amiliar, alcohol, is acknowledged tocause psychomotor impairment to the pointwhere operating machinery or making saety-sensitive decisions becomes unwise at certainblood levels. Other psychoactive drugs areknown to impair time and distance perception,



judgment and impulsivity, and auditory andvisual perception. In general, this is reerredto as “impairment”. While global statementsconcerning impairment are relatively easy tomake, “the devil is in the details”.

When attempting to delineate impairment at

various blood levels, only alcohol has reliably,and via multiple research studies, beendemonstrated to impair in a reproducible ashionacross individuals and over time. Consequently,most authorities today accept blood-alcohollevels as being indicative o impairment.Other psychoactive drugs have not beenstudied as much as alcohol and have dierentpharmacokinetics. One o the key issues aroundalcohol is the act that it is water-soluble andeliminated by xed order kinetics rom the body.Consequently, areas o distribution in the body/

brain and dose response curves are relativelyeasy to construct. Fat soluble psychoactivechemicals such as the cannabinoids, the activeingredients in marijuana, are eliminated bydierent pathways in a much more complexashion, and distributed through the body ina much dierent manner. As such, blood orurine levels do not correspond nearly as wellto measures o impairment. Coupled with thecomplex behavioral eects o some o thesedrugs, paradoxical results can even be seen.Several studies on impairment and marijuanause have actually shown drivers to be saer than

control groups when intoxicated by marijuana2,3.It has been speculated that this counterintuitiveresult devolves rom the act that driversintoxicated by marijuana experience theperception o being much more intoxicated thanthey really are. As such, they tend to drive muchmore conservatively and make ewer errors ondriving tests. This has been misinterpreted inthe past as providing evidence that marijuanadoes not impair driving skills or is not relevantto saety-sensitive positions. Clearly, when astudy is designed to look at driving perormance

versus marijuana dosage, impairment can bedemonstrated.4a,b,c Such misinterpretation isillustrative o the diculty that aces us whensomeone looks at research data and attemptsto extrapolate it to practical realities o theworkplace. Adding to the conusion is thepractice o mixing “acute” impairment data(i.e. the eects o a psychoactive drug on anacutely intoxicated individual), usually measuredin hours, and “subacute or chronic” impairmentthrough eects on ability to learn, concentrateand adverse mood phenomena such as

irritability or depression.

In general, the pursuit o impairment estimationby means o biochemical testing has been anexercise in conusion and rustration. Objectionshave been raised in the medical community,and by others, against the widespread activityo psychoactive drug screening by means ourinary detection. The core objection is that

urinary levels o psychoactive drugs do notcorrespond to impairment. Various human rightscommissions have loosely based their oppositionto urine drug tests on this objection. It is not theposition o this policy that urinary levels o suchsubstances as cocaine or tetrahydrocannabinol(and their metabolites) correspond toimpairment in any individual. The only thingthat a urine drug test is useul or, with ourcurrent state o knowledge, is stating whetheran individual has consumed the drug in questionor has not. Likewise, the presence o a drug in

a urine test tells us nothing about whether theindividual has a disability (addiction) or not. Atcurrent levels o knowledge, urine drug testsare extremely useul in monitoring individualsin whom the diagnosis o addiction has alreadybeen made, or ongoing drug use. Blood alcohollevels (or their biological equivalent, breathalcohol) has been shown to be an accuratemeasure o impairment. Thus we are aced withthe counterintuitive reality that employers orunions who wish to ensure that a workplace isree o psychoactive drug related impairmentace opposition to the use o urine drug testsbecause o the aorementioned inability o suchtests to measure impairment.

While it is true that urine drug tests do notmeasure impairment, it is untrue that theuse o psychoactive drugs does not impairindividuals. As such, it is suggested that wemove away rom the impairment-based thinkingwhich has governed drug testing up to thispoint, and instead move towards a risk-basedapproach. There are ample data to suggestthat, with each psychoactive drug studied,

the use o that drug by an individual imposesmeasurable and reproducible risk in termso complex psychomotor perormance. Theexact risk may vary by individual, or by task,but in a global ashion it can be measured andreproduced. The question beore us then, is itmedically reasonable to exclude psychoactivedrug use rom the workplace because it carrieswith it an unacceptable increase in risk? Putanother way, is it reasonable or an employeror unions to insist that their employees / members be psychoactive drug-ree as a bona

de occupational requirement or proessionswhich involve risk to sel or others i the workerwas impaired (driving, working at heights,manipulating machinery, or using dangeroussubstances such as explosives etc.)?



Turning rst to the second-most commonpsychoactive drug in the workplace ater alcohol,much research has been done on marijuana(tetrahydrocannabinol) and psychomotorperormance. Much has been made o the actthat the acute eects o tetrahydrocannabinolgenerally last less than six hours. The argument

is typically made that, provided that an individualdoes not consume marijuana within six hours osaety-sensitive work, the act that it is presentin urine is irrelevant in terms o saety or tnessto perorm work. Increasingly, research in termso neuropsychological actors is suggestingotherwise. Firstly, marijuana use appears toaect the cerebellum and hippocampus areaso the brain in more pronounced ashions. Thisimpairs the person’s ability to orm memories5,6 and shit attention7,8 rom one item to another.The cerebellum is involved in coordination and

balance and dysregulation o balance, postureand reaction time can occur. Additionally,marijuana has been shown to have deleteriouscardiovascular eects, the risk o heart attackbeing our times that o normal baseline in therst hour ater smoking marijuana9. While this,admittedly, is an acute eect, it contributes tothe overall risk burden imposed on the worksite by this drug, and adds urther support orexcluding this drug rom saety-sensitive workareas. The research can best be summarized byquoting rom Leirer et al10 (1991): “Marijuanaimpaired perormance at .25, 4, 8, and 24hater smoking. While 7 o the 9 (subjects)showed some degree o impairment at 24hater smoking, only one reported any awarenesso the drug’s eects. The results support ourpreliminary study and suggest that very complexhuman/machine perormance can be impairedas long as 24h ater smoking a moderate socialdose o marijuana, and that the user may beunaware o the drug’s infuence”

Emerging work on schizophrenia and thepermissive eects o marijuana11 strongly connect

the use o this substance with the emergenceo schizophrenia in a susceptible population.Unortunately, there is no way to know the exactgenetic marker which determines whether oneis susceptible or not. It has been estimated that13 per cent o all schizophrenia is attributable tomarijuana use. It is certainly deensible to statethat this is yet another way that this substanceand its usage contributes to risk, as an earlyemerging psychotic illness may make itsel knownthrough delusional behaviour and accidentscaused thereby.

In addition, there exists a well-denedwithdrawal syndrome. A amiliar argumentdeending the use o marijuana on a recreationalbasis is that, provided the user is not acutelyintoxicated at work, no signicant harm will

result rom recreational use. A recent researchstudy has measured aggressiveness in marijuanausers who are in the withdrawal phase, andound that aggressive acts peak at seven dayspost drug use. Aggressivity in the workplace isone o the correlations with poor work saety12.Additionally, in this study there were other

attitudinal problems. “The surveys ound thatmarijuana users were less likely than nonusersto commit to the organization, had less aithin management, and experienced low jobsatisaction. These workers reported moreabsenteeism, tardiness, accidents, workers compensation claims (emphasis added), and job turnover than workers who did not usemarijuana. They were also more likely to reportto work with a hangover, miss work because oa hangover, and be drunk or use drugs at work.”The sum total o the impairment data that are

known about marijuana, as well as some othe neuropsychological eects o marijuanause, provides compelling arguments in terms oincreased risk at a saety-sensitive work site. Theargument is oten advanced that insisting on apsychoactive drug ree state is an unwarrantedintrusion into a worker’s private o-work lie.The oregoing studies demonstrate that the o-work use o marijuana aects at-work risk, suchthat the colloquialism “what I do in my own timeis my own business” is rendered invalid.

In terms o other psychoactive drugs,

benzodiazepines (eg. Valium, Libriumetc.) have modes o action very similar toethanol (“alcohol”). While measurement obenzodiazepine levels is not as easy to perormas breath alcohol testing, there is still a goodcorrelation between those levels and impairment.All o the data that is accepted in terms o alcoholuse and saety also applies to benzodiazepines.

Other psychoactive drugs that arecurrently a concern in Canada are cocaine,amphetamine and its derivatives, including

“crystal meth” (methamphetamine), aswell as designer drugs such as ecstasy (3,4methylenedioxymethamphetamine, MDMA).MDMA and driving impairment has beenstudied13. In this review study the conclusionis reached “that MDMA use is not consistentwith sae driving, and that impairment ovarious types may persist or a considerable timeater last use”. Cocaine-related psychologicalimpairment has also been studied14. “The resultssuggest that recent cocaine use is associatedwith impairment in memory, visuospatial abilities

and concentration during the acute phase owithdrawal, independent o withdrawal-relateddepression. Furthermore, many o these decitsappear to persist at least two weeks beyondcessation o cocaine use”. By the time casualcocaine or crack cocaine use has progressed



to dependence, cognitive decits can bedemonstrated at six months o abstinence15.Again, each o these drugs can be detectedby the use o urinary screening, but that doesnothing to measure impairment. However, i weapproach the use o these drugs rom a risk-basedconcept it can be shown that neuropsychological

sequelae o such drug use, even on a casual basis,is deleterious toward saety.

A special mention should be made o thesubgroup o psychoactive drug users who suerrom the disease o addiction. This organization(COAA) specically recognizes addiction asa disease, constituting a disability in need odetection, treatment and accommodation.Given our current level o understanding oaddiction and the involuntary nature o thedrug use associated with it, as well as the

classic unawareness that the person sueringrom the illness typically has concerningtheir own impairment, that understandingdemands a specic response. It is recognizedthat urinary drug screening is one method odetecting individuals who have used a varietyo psychoactive substances in the recent past.As such, testing has a side benet o potentiallyidentiying those individuals in which urtherassessment is warranted by a substance abuseexpert. Again, it must be explicitly stated thatdrug testing is not diagnostic o addiction,but in this case would be serving the purpose

o initiating treatment in an individual unableto seek help or themselves (“case nding”).It must also be explicitly stated that there areother, research validated, methods to detectaddiction, such as observed behaviours, traumaquestionnaires, impaired driving convictionsetc, and this policy supports the education osupervisors and co-workers to enable them toalso make use o these ancillary methods, toacilitate the addicted worker getting help.

The oregoing data all support the position

that psychoactive drug use entails increasedrisk by virtue o both acute and chronic eects.Risk minimization demands a saety-sensitiveworkplace be drug-ree. Any policy directedat risk reduction should consider multipleinterventions to move towards this goal.Prevention in terms o education, programs toencourage non-punitive sel or peer reportingo individuals suering rom addiction / abuseare all key elements addressed in this policy. Theother key medical issue to consider is whetherbiochemical drug screening has any role to play

in this multi-pronged approach? Additionally,since the stated purpose o this policy is riskreduction, are their any studies which show thatdrug testing reduces work site accidents?

There are a signicant number o studiesaddressing this question. Wickizer et al16 compared injury incidence rates between261 companies enrolled in the drug-reeworkplace program and 20,500 noninterventioncompanies. The drug-ree workplaceintervention was signicantly (p<.05) associated

with a decrease in injury rates or three industrygroups: construction, manuacturing andservice. It was also associated (p<.05) with areduction in incidence rate o more seriousinjuries involving our or more days o workor two industry groups – construction andservice, thus speaking not only to incidence butalso severity. They concluded, “The drug-reeworkplace program we studied was associatedwith a selective industry-specic preventativeeect. The strongest evidence o an interventioneect was or the construction industry.”

Ozminkowski et17

studied urinary drug testingat a manuacturing company over three yearsand its eect on medical expenditures and jobinjuries. A signicant reduction in both medicalexpenditures and injury rates was ound. Gerberet al18 specically examined the constructionindustry, concluding that, “Analyses indicatethat companies with drug-testing programsexperienced a 51 per cent reduction in incidentrates within two years o implementation.Moreover, companies that drug test theiremployees experienced a signicant reductionin their WCB (Workers’ Compensation Board)experience-rating modication actors.”

Other objections to urinary drug testingprograms oten raised include the act thatworkers view them in a negative light, andthat there is no evidence that such programsdiscourage psychoactive drug use. Recentstudies tend to reute these arguments. Frenchet al19 studied the question as to whetherworkplace drug testing infuenced drug use.15,000 households were surveyed with respectto whether such programs infuenced their

drug taking habits. They ound that, “Estimatedmarginal eects o drug testing on any druguse were negatively signicant, and relativelylarge…”. Likewise, Howland et al20 looked at theeect drug-testing had on employee attitudesand ound 65 per cent o 6,370 surveyedemployees at a variety o work settings avouredpre-employment testing, 81 per cent supportedtesting ater an accident and 49 per centsupported random testing. Support or work sitealcohol testing was highest among blue-collarworkers whose jobs involved manuacturing or

exposure to work hazards.



In conclusion, it is the medical position othis organization that the use o psychoactivedrugs as delineated above has an unacceptablenegative eect on job saety both or the userand those around him or her. There is strongscientic support or the act that drug testingas part o a multi-aceted enlightened approach

to this problem is eective and justied. Thenon-usage o psychoactive drugs by people whowish to access saety-sensitive jobs is a bonade occupational requirement.

Footnotes:

1. NIH Alcohol Alert Number 18: “The Geneticso Alcoholism”. www.niaaa.nih.gov/ publications/aa18.htm

2. Robbe, H.W.J. Marijuana’s eects on ActualDriving Perormance, Netherlands.

3. Drummer, O.H. Drugs and Accident risk inFatally Injured Drivers.

4. National Highway Trac SaetyAdministration. Marijuana and alcoholcombined severely impede drivingperormance. Annals o Emergency Medicine35(4): 398-399. 2000.

4b. Heishman. NIDA study. 1996.

4c. Raemaekers J.G. et al. Dose related risk

o motor vehicle crashes ater CannabisUse; Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004 February7;73(2): 109-19. 2004.

5. Pope, H.G. The residual cognitive eectso heavy marijuana use in college students.JAMA 272(7):521-527. 1996.

6. Pope H.G. et al. Neuropsychologicalperormance in long-term cannabis users.Archives o General Psychiatry, 58(10);909-915. 2001.

7. Fletcher et al. Cognitive correlates o chroniccannabis use in Costa Rican men. Archives oGeneral Psychiatry, 53:1051-1057. 1996.

8. Ameri, A. The eects o cannabinoids on thebrain. Prog. Neurobiol 58(4):315-348, 1999

9. Mittleman et al. Triggering myocardialinarction by marijuana. Circulation103:2805-2809. 2001.

10. Leirer V.O. et al. Marijuana Carry-over eects

on Aircrat Pilot Perormance, Aviat. SpaceEnviron. Med. 62:221-7. 1991.

11. Schizophrenia and Marijuana. British MedicalJournal, November 22, 2002 v 325: 1212-1213; 1195-1198; 1199. 2002.

12. Lehman W.E. et al; Employee substanceabuse and on-the-job behaviors. Journal oapplied Psychology, 77(3):309-321. 1992.

13. Logan B.K. et al. 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA,ecstasy) and driving impairment, J Forensic

Sci, Nov,46(6):1426-33. 2001.

14. Berry J. et al. Neuropsychological decitsin abstinent cocaine abusers: preliminaryndings ater two weeks o abstinence;Drug Alcohol Depend. 1993 May;32(3):231-7. 1993.

15. Di Sclaani V. et al. Neuropsychologicalperormance o individuals dependenton crack cocaine, or crack-cocaine andalcohol, at 6 weeks and 6 months oabstinence; Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002 Apr.

1;66(2):161-71. 2002.

16. Wickizer T.M. et al. Do drug-ree workplaceprograms prevent occupational injuries?Evidence rom Washington State; HealthServ. Res. 2004 Feb; 39 (1):91-110. 2004.

17. Ozminkowski R.J. et al. Relationshipsbetween urinalysis testing or substance use,medical expenditures, and the occurrence oinjuries at a large manuacturing rm. AmJ Drug Alcohol Abuse 2003;29(1):151-67.

2003.

18. Gerber J.K. et al. An assessment o drugtesting within the construction industry; JDrug Educ. 2002;32(1):53-68. 2002.

19. French M.T. et al. To test or not to test: doworkplace drug testing programs discourageemployee drug use? Soc Sci Res. 2004Mar;33(1):45-63. 2004.

20. Howland J. et al; Employee attitudes towardwork-site alcohol testing; J Occup Environ

Med. 1996 Oct;38(10): 1041-6. 19956.

Revised October 7, 2005

Brendan Adams, M.D.



Q

U E S T I O N S

Frequently AskedQuestions



FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONSCanadian Model for Providing aSafe Workplace

Why do we need alcohol and drugguidelines?

As individuals, we may hold varying opinionsabout the use and the personal or societalimpact o alcohol and drugs and makeour own liestyle choices accordingly.Regardless o a person’s opinion, the actis that alcohol and drugs can adverselyaect an individual’s mental and physicalabilities. That act presents an obviousand real concern or companies that arecommitted to providing employees with asae workplace.

In addition, there may be certainrequirements, either through regulationsor owner/industry standards, which requireguidelines and policies.

What determines whether an incidentor accident is signicant to warranttesting?

All potentially dangerous incidents oraccidents provide cause or testing. I thereis objective evidence to believe that the useo alcohol or drugs was not a actor in theoccurrence, then the requirement or testingmay be waived.

Can I get help i I think I have analcohol or drug problem?

Yes. You can access your company’semployee assistance services program orcontact alternative agencies such as AADACor personal counselling.

What is a recognized rehabilitation

program?

A recognized rehabilitation program wouldbe any substance abuse treatment programrecognized by the Government o Alberta (orany other Canadian province), or recognizedby the Alberta College o Physicians andSurgeons (or any other provincial equivalent).In general, a physician, a social worker,an employee assistance services plan, acompany occupational health department,or company human resources department

can direct individuals to a recognizedrehabilitation program.

Is ollow-up testing required orrehabilitation?

Normally, the designated rehabilitationprovider will make the determination oollow-up testing.

What happens to sel-reerrals toemployee assistance services?

Sel-reerrals are condential between theemployee and the employee assistanceservice.

Will I get red i I have an alcohol ordrug problem?

The Canadian Model or Providing a SaeWorkplace states that sel-reerrals willnot compromise employment. I you havea problem and are ound to test positiveater being tested or cause, you will besubject to the company’s discipline and/ordischarge policies.

What i someone I know at work has analcohol or drug problem?

Every individual at a workplace has apersonal responsibility to ensure thesaety o themselves and others. Part othat responsibility would be to encourage

and help that individual seek assistancethrough an employee assistance service ora supervisor. I that individual is putting himor hersel or others in danger, you have aresponsibility to report that individual to yoursupervisor or leader.



Why are there various levels or standardsor testing or alcohol? For example,i the level or impaired driving is 0.08grams o alcohol in 210 litres o breath,why does this model use 0.04 grams oalcohol in 210 litres o breath?

The police use a level o 0.08 grams oalcohol in 210 litres o breath as the legallimit or alcohol when operating a motorvehicle. It is recognized that impairment canoccur at much lower levels. Because theoperation o vehicles and equipment in acommercial setting can be more demandingthan the operation o a motor vehicle, ingeneral, the acceptable level has been setlower. It is interesting to note that the UnitedStates Department o Transportation (U.S.DOT) uses a level o 0.02 grams o alcohol

in 210 litres o breath as cause to suspenda driver rom driving at the time withouturther disciplinary action and a level o 0.04grams o alcohol in 210 litres o breath ascause or suspension and disciplinary action.

Why are we using the United StatesDepartment o Transportation(U.S. DOT) standards or testing oCanadian workers?

The U.S. DOT standards are a rigorous set o

procedures and protocols or employment-related drug testing. They were developedto ensure air and reliable testing o workerscovered by the United States mandatory drugtesting legislation. Canada, o course, hasno mandatory drug testing. The U.S. DOTstandards have been mandated or the COAABest Practice (Canadian Model or Providing aSae Workplace) to ensure quality testing andlegal deensibility o results.

Where can a copy o the U.S. DOT

standards be obtained?Copies o the standards may be obtained romlaboratories that are certied to perorm testingunder the U.S. DOT standards. Alternatively,the standards can be ound on the Internet.

Can the company test me or otherdrugs besides those listed, or test orother medical purposes?

A company may choose to test or otherdrugs but these should be stated in thecompany’s specic policy. The employee

should be made aware o the drugs to beincluded in the testing. No testing or othermedical purposes, such as pregnancy, AIDS,diabetes, etc., should ever be perormedpursuant to this policy.

Can I challenge a positive test?

A donor may challenge a positive test in therst sample by providing a legitimate reasonor the positive test when contacted by themedical review ocer (MRO). The donor

may also request that the MRO arrange ora retest on the split portion o the originalspecimen, normally at the donor’s expense,at the same laboratory or an alternativecertied laboratory. This request must bemade within 72 hours o the employeebeing notied by the MRO that the rst testwas ound to be positive.

What are “reasonable grounds”?

In a case where an employee is caughtdistributing, possessing, consuming or

using alcohol or drugs at work, an alcoholand drug test is not required to establisha breach o the standards. The act itselconstitutes a breach o the standards set bythe guidelines.

Appreciating that there may not always bedirect evidence o a breach, and recognizingthat early detection o saety concerns beorethe occurrence o an accident or incidentis the hallmark o eective saety and lossmanagement, testing is encouraged in cases

where there are “reasonable grounds”or a supervisor or leader to believe thatan employee may have consumed or usedalcohol or drugs at work or may be under theinfuence o alcohol or drugs.

“Reasonable grounds” or believing that anemployee may be in breach o the standardsconcerning detectable levels o alcohol ordrugs can arise in two general situations.



Firstly, a situation where the supervisor orleader observes, overhears or otherwisediscovers something which would cause anyreasonable person in that situation to believethe employee is in breach o the guidelines,including, or example:

• where the smell o alcohol is detected onan employee’s breath, or• where the supervisor or leader

overhears a conversation at work inwhich an employee admits to justhaving consumed or used alcoholor drugs.

A supervisor or leader in such a casecan, but is not required to, question theemployee about the observation or discoveryto determine whether or not the belie isreasonable. Alternatively, the supervisor orleader can simply request the employee tosubmit to an alcohol and drug test.

Secondly, “reasonable grounds” can alsoexist in a situation where the leader has areasonable suspicion that an employee maybe in breach o the guidelines and policybased on observations or discoveries, whichare less conclusive and which seem moreconsistent with a breach o the guidelinesthan with any other reasonable explanation,or example:

• where an empty liquor bottle or drugsare ound in a vehicle used by theemployee

• where the employee’s appearance andbehavior strongly suggests that theemployee is under the infuence oalcohol or drugs, or

• where the employee’s ailure to correcta chronic perormance problem stronglysuggests that the employee may be usingor is under the infuence o alcohol ordrugs at work.

A supervisor or leader in such a case shouldnot request the employee to submit to analcohol and drug test unless the leader hasdiscussed the observations or concerns inquestion with the employee and has giventhe employee an opportunity to providean explanation. I the explanation providesadditional inormation that causes thesupervisor or leader to conclude that theemployee has not breached the guidelines,then the employee should not be required

to submit to an alcohol and drug test.However, i the employee’s explanationdoes not dispel or contradict the supervisoror leader’s suspicion then the employeeshould be tested.

Do I have to report any non-prescriptionmedication I take – like cold, fu, allergyor headache medications?

Any medication, prescription or non-prescription, which may aect a worker’sability to perorm his or her job saely, must

be reported. Other medications, which donot aect a worker’s ability to perorm hisor her job saely, need not be reported. Anymedications or medical inormation reportedwill be treated as condential.

How can I nd out about the eectsand side eects o medicationsprescribed or me?

The eects and side eects o prescriptionmedications are usually provided by

pharmacies. Eects and side eects o non-prescription medications are also providedwith the medication. More inormationcan be obtained rom your pharmacist orphysician. Workers are advised to make theirphysicians or pharmacists aware o theirsaety-sensitive occupation and any othermedications they may be taking.

What are the issues or companies andemployees regarding providing alcoholat social unctions?

There are both corporate and legal issues tothis question.

The corporate issue: Companies that havealcohol and drug policies should be awarethat oering alcohol at company events maybe perceived by employees as inconsistentwith the policy. Thereore, a company withan alcohol and drug policy may want to bemore selective about when it will providealcohol at company unctions.

The legal issue: An employer who providesalcohol to employees has the same duty atlaw as a tavern-owner, namely to ensure thatno employee is too impaired to drive and, iimpaired, does not have access to a vehicle.



I have a small company. How do Iarrange or assistance in implementingan alcohol and drug policy andguidelines or my workers?

To assist companies in implementing theCanadian Model and to maximize its

eectiveness, mentoring relationships arebeing established between larger and smallercompanies. I you want inormation aboutbecoming part o a mentoring relationshipwith a larger company, please contact theConstruction Owners Association o Alberta(COAA) or the Alberta Construction SaetyAssociation (ACSA) at the telephone numberslisted below.

COAA (780) 420-1145

ACSA 1-800-661-2272 (Edmonton),1-800-661-6090 (Calgary)

Where can I get more inormation onthis topic?

There is a list o resources in the CanadianModel, alcohol and drug guidelines (Section4.0), which provides contact numbers orspecic areas.



E MP L O Y E R S ’ G U

I D E

Alcohol and Drug

Awareness for Employers



Commitment

Once the policy is endorsed, it will still requireongoing commitment and attention. Regularmeetings with personnel assigned to implementthe policy shows your ongoing interest and theimportance you place on the implementation

o the policy and its success. Your interest, asthe employer, creates accountability that istransparent and eective.

It is important to note that commitment on thecorporation’s part includes the need to apply thepolicy universally to all employees, at every level.

Education

To achieve true progress with this CanadianModel, attitudes among all workers relatingto alcohol and drug use aecting workplace

perormance must shit such that no oneaccepts any workplace saety risks associatedwith alcohol and drug use. The proven tool orchanging attitude is education. Employers willnd that an investment in eective educationwill have a signicant payback or reducingsaety incidents. The ollowing topics should becovered through various educational vehicles.

For all workers, include the ollowingsubjects:

• saety concerns and saety ocus o the policy

• key elements o the policy, particularlythe work rule standards, the alcoholand drug testing procedures andthe circumstances where the policyrequires alcohol and drug testing

• eects on workers that result rom alcoholand drug use

• behaviours that a person demonstrates whenunder the infuence o alcohol and/or drugs

• role o employee assistance servicesprograms and how to access these services

• second chance principles o the policy thatocus on rehabilitation and re-employment.

For company supervisors, include theollowing subjects:

• intervention techniques and styles withpeople who are suspected o being at workunder the infuence o alcohol and/or drugs

• proper investigation and inquiry procedureswhen interviewing employees and investigatingincidents pursuant to the policy requirements

EMPLOYERS’ GUIDE:ALCOHOL AND DRUGAWARENESS FOR EMPLOYERS


Introduction

This employers’ guide has been newly addedto the Canadian Model or Providing a SaeWorkplace (the Canadian Model). As anemployer, you are encouraged to implement thepolicy and guidelines or your employees andyour entire operations.

Endorsement

Successul implementation o this policythroughout your company will only happen

i it has the support, endorsement and activeparticipation o the highest level o management.That commitment must be communicated toeveryone in your company and reinorced withthe message that it is corporate policy.

Successul implementation also requirescommitting sucient unds or eectively rollingout the policy and assigning the necessarypeople to make it happen.

Communications plan

An eective policy requires communicating withevery person at every level that a policy is inplace. Every member o the management teammust be committed to its implementation. Toreinorce the importance, it is recommended thata policy statement, signed by the chie executiveocer, is prominently displayed throughout thecompany and at various operations points.

The chances o successul implementation andacceptance requires:

• a written policy that is readily accessible toeach individual

• communicating to and cooperating with theorganized labour provider (i applicable)

• communicating expectations andenorcement guidelines to each employee.



• eective decision-making procedures inapplying the alcohol and drug testingrequirements o the policy

• return to work and relapse issues

• proper management o policy inormation

obtained pursuant to policy application

• managing and structuring conditional returnto work agreements

• appropriate communication with crewmembers about the content o the policy

• reerral procedures to employee assistanceservices programs and the ull capability andpotential o these services.

Excellent and well-established education

programs about the policy are available throughlabour providers, employer associations, andcommunity programs oered by organizationssuch as AADAC (Alberta Alcohol and DrugAbuse Commission). Utilizing them, along withcustomized communication and educationpackages or your company’s circumstances, willgo a long way toward achieving the policy goal− to ensure workplaces are ree rom the saetyrisks associated with alcohol and drug use.

Implementing the Canadian Model

It is recognized that the use o illicit drugsand the inappropriate use o alcohol andprescription and non-prescription drugscan have serious adverse eects on aperson’s health, saety and job perormance.Implementing a solid industry-wide model,including both a policy and guidelines, willhelp to enhance the level o health andsaety at the workplace. In implementing theCanadian Model, it is critical to think throughthe structure prior to implementation. Here aresome points to consider.

• Make arrangements or access to substanceabuse expert (SAE) services.

• Identiy your employee assistance servicesprogram (EAP) service provider, and ensureemployees know how to access those EAPservices.

• Establish the testing and notication criteriayou will use.

• Identiy who your testing provider and

medical review ocer will be.

• Set up an account with your testing providerand receive your client code number.

• Identiy who your designated employerrepresentative will be and communicatethat to the testing provider. Your designatedemployer representative is the person who willreceive all condential records and invoices.

• Identiy who will be authorized to make

appointments and receive results. Thisperson(s) may or may not be the sameperson as the designated employerrepresentative.

• Establish clear and concise guidelines andprocedures or booking appointments soyou ensure consistency with all people beingidentied as potential employees.



S U P E R V I S O R S ’ G U I D E

Alcohol and Drug

Awareness for Supervisors



SUPERVISORS’ GUIDE:ALCOHOL AND DRUGAWARENESS FOR SUPERVISORS


Introduction

Background

As individuals, we hold varying opinionsabout the use and the personal or societalimpact o alcohol and drugs, and we make ourliestyle choices accordingly. Regardless o ouropinions, the act is that an individual’s mentaland physical abilities are adversely aectedby alcohol and drugs. That act presents anobvious and real concern or companies inthe construction industry regarding the sae

operation o their enterprise. Companies arecommitted to providing a sae workplace or alltheir workers, at all times and in all situations.

As part o the construction industry’scommitment to saety, new and revisedstandard alcohol and drug guidelines havebeen introduced, called the Canadian Modelor Providing a Sae Workplace (the CanadianModel). Construction companies across Canadaare implementing these standard guidelines orall their workers and operations.

Roles and responsibilities osupervisors and leaders

The successul implementation o the CanadianModel is the shared responsibility o ownercompanies, contractors, workers and labourproviders. As part o this shared responsibility,supervisors and leaders must:

• communicate and give leadership in theimplementation o the Canadian Model

• be knowledgeable about and communicatethe company’s alcohol and drug work ruleand procedures to all workers

• be knowledgeable about and be able torecognize the symptoms o the use oalcohol and drugs

• understand the company’s perormancemanagement policy and how the CanadianModel is integral to that policy

• take action on perormance deviations

• take action on reported or suspected alcoholor drug use by workers.

Importance o education

Worker awareness o the actual and potentialrisks, both on and o the job, related to theconsumption or use o alcohol or drugs is veryimportant. Education and communication arethe vehicles through which we can bring this

awareness to all people engaged on our worksites. In act, awareness and education are theprincipal methods that our industry is utilizing toensure compliance with the Canadian Model byall workers. With everyone complying with thestandards dened in this policy, we can achieveour goal o eliminating workplace health andsaety concerns associated with non-compliance.

As a supervisor, you have a very key role andresponsibility in bringing this education alivein the work site with your work crews. Byinvesting in the education o the people you areresponsible or in the workplace, and ensuringthey understand the standards contained inthe Canadian Model as well as the risks anddangers associated with alcohol and drug use,you will have gone a long way to achievingthe necessary policy compliance. In the longrun, this makes your job as a supervisor easierand meaningully contributes to the success oensuring a sae workplace.

Many opportunities exist that can help toensure eective education and learning occurs

in the workplace. While education can takeplace ormally, such as in a classroom or astructured meeting, it will also very requentlyhappen through less ormal means. Forexample, excellent opportunities arise whenorienting new employees to their work areas.Other examples include tool box meetings andsaety meetings. Leading by personal exampleis also a powerul means o education. Goodsupervisors are respected and looked at as amodel o behaviour, especially by apprentices.Supervisors must demonstrate behaviours that

are consistent with the standards dened in theCanadian Model.

As a rst principle, it is important to realize thatthe policy applies to all employees, regardlesso whether or not a worker has problemsrelating to the use o alcohol or drugs. Thisunderstanding will avoid exclusively targetingworkers who have substance abuse problems.Additionally, in communicating the intent o thepolicy to workers, it is helpul to emphasize that,in the rst instance, the policy is designed tocorrect − not punish − unacceptable actions and

behaviours because o the saety risks associatedwith alcohol and drug use. Employee assistanceservices programs will help assess and acilitateany corrections that are necessary to ensureongoing compliance with the Canadian Model.



This supervisors’ guide has been designedto provide supervisors with the skills andknowledge required to acilitate educationwithin their work crews about alcohol and drugissues, as well as to eectively manage alcoholand drug related perormance issues. To thisend, the guide addresses matters beyond the

alcohol and drug guidelines such as:

• understanding terminology associated withalcohol and drug use

• providing awareness o the needs o workerswho are returning to work rom counsellingor a rehabilitation program

• recognizing that support systems areavailable that are designed to assistsupervisors, leaders and other workers inaddressing alcohol or drug related issues.

Desired outcomes

Ater reviewing this supervisors’ guide, you should:

• understand the undamental purpose othe guidelines and know the standards andrequirements established by those guidelines

• know the meaning o some common alcoholand drug related terms

• understand the concept o “enabling” andthe importance o avoiding behaviours that

allow problems related to alcohol or druguse to continue unaddressed

• have inormation about alcohol and drugissues related to the Canadian Model to helpyou in communicating policy issues to yourwork crews

• know your role and responsibilities inaddressing perormance problems related toalcohol and drug use

• have a greater ability to recognize the

behaviours or conduct that may indicateperormance problems related to alcoholand drug use

• know and clearly understand the processand steps to manage and addressperormance issues in general, as well asperormance problems related to alcohol ordrugs specically

• know the support systems designed to assistsupervisors and team members in addressingperormance issues.


Guiding principles

The guidelines are based on a number o keyundamental principles.

• Shared responsibility or saety As a matter o law and as a practicalact, both individuals and companies inthe construction industry have a sharedresponsibility or saety in the workplace.The Occupational Health and Saety Act oAlberta imposes a legal obligation on allworkers to protect the health and saety othemselves and other workers.

• Behaviour on and o the job The commitment o workers to saetycannot be measured only by their conduct

and perormance on the job. By necessity,given the nature o operations in theconstruction industry, workers must haveregard to conduct or behaviour on and othe job that may adversely aect their abilityto saely perorm their duties at work. Thisspecically extends to the consumption oruse o alcohol and drugs as addressed by thealcohol and drug guidelines and policy.

• Balancing saety and privacyinterests Society’s view with respect to alcoholand drug use in Canada has been rapidlyevolving in recent years, especially inregards to how this use potentially aectsthe saety and well-being o others. Well-recognized examples, such as those relatingto the dangers o drinking and driving orthe promotion o the use o seat belts, arebecoming more prominent and common.

Initiatives to manage and eliminatesaety risks in the workplace benet allstakeholders including workers (and their

amilies) as well as business organizations. Atthe same time, it is also important that therights o workers be respected, particularlyregarding protection against unnecessaryintrusion into their personal privacy, as wework towards achieving zero workplaceincidents. When the Canadian Model’s workrule, guidelines and procedures are ollowed,a balance can be attained between ensuringsaety in the workplace and respecting theprivacy o all workers.



• Privacy o inormation In 2004, privacy legislation was enactedthat provides or protection surrounding thecollection, use and disclosure o personalinormation about individuals. The CanadianModel also stresses the importance oensuring condentiality o inormation and

that in all circumstances workers be treatedwith dignity and respect in the applicationo the policy. Eorts have been taken toensure that the Canadian Model complieswith Alberta privacy legislation (PersonalInormation Protection Act) as well asederal privacy legislation PIPEDA (PersonalInormation Protection and ElectronicDocumentation Act).

• Encourage worker sel-reerral Workers who eel they may be experiencingproblems associated with alcohol or drug use

should voluntarily seek help under an employeeassistance services program that has beenidentied by the company, labour provider,employer organization or worker association.

A closer look at the alcohol and drugguidelines

• Work standards The guidelines set out, very denitively, thestandards that must be met by all workers toensure their saety and the saety o others.

• No worker shall distribute, possess,consume or use alcohol or illegal drugson any company workplace.

• No worker shall report to work or be atwork under the infuence o alcohol ordrugs that may or will aect their abilityto work saely.

• No worker shall test positive or anyalcohol or drugs at concentrations asspecied in section 3.1 o the alcohol anddrug work rule.

• No worker shall misuse prescription ornon-prescription drugs while at work.I a worker is taking a prescription ornon-prescription drug or which thereis a potential unsae side eect, he orshe has an obligation to report it to thesupervisor.

• Alcohol and drug testingcircumstances Alcohol and drug testing may be conductedin the ollowing circumstances:

• prior to accessing the owner’s property

• where the employer has reasonablegrounds to believe an employee may beunable to work in a sae manner becauseo the use o alcohol or drugs

• as part o an investigation into anincident or near miss to determine ialcohol or drugs could have played a role

• where employees are covered byemployee assistance services programs,the employer may conduct lawul

computer-generated random alcohol anddrug testing o the workorce.

• Consequences or non-negativetest results

• The employer may discipline or terminateor cause an employee who ails to complywith the alcohol and drug work rule.

• Prior to the employer making a decisionwith regard to discipline or termination,the employee shall meet with asubstance abuse expert who shall makean assessment o the employee andmake appropriate recommendations.

• The employee must demonstratecompliance with the recommendationso the substance abuse expert orlicensed physician with knowledge osubstance abuse disorders as well assign an agreement speciying returnto work conditions imposed as parto a rehabilitation program and other

reasonable conditions set by the employer.

• Education The industry recognizes the importance omaking workers aware through educationo the actual and potential risks, both onand o the job, related to the consumptionor use o alcohol or drugs. As with othersaety programs, the industry will useworker education and awareness as theprincipal method o ensuring compliancewith the guidelines and reducing workplace

health and saety concerns associated withnon-compliance.

• Sel-reerral to employee assistanceservices The industry encourages workers to seekproessional assistance i they know orsuspect they have a problem with drugs oralcohol, and supports sel-reerral to existingemployee assistance services programs orthat purpose.

Any worker who is receiving assistancerom an employee assistance servicesprogram or an alcohol or drug problemmust comply with the terms and conditionso the program and must comply with thestandards set by the guidelines.



Common denitions

To assist you, ollowing are denitions o someterms commonly used in the context o alcoholand drug use.

Addiction

Traditionally, this term has been synonymous withphysical dependence and ull-fedged withdrawalsymptoms. Addiction is characterized by:

• change in tolerance – initially increases(more amount o the drug needed toproduce the desired eect) and in later stagestolerance decreases (less amount o the drugneeded to produce the same eect)

• loss o control – the amount osubstance consumed, and the timing or

place o consumption

• blackouts (i the drug o choice is alcohol) –no recall o events (alcohol-induced amnesia)

• physical complications – e.g. malnutrition,hypertension, liver damage

• psychological symptoms – deensemechanisms designed to minimize eelingso anxiety and despair. These deensemechanisms are a coping strategy as theperson’s sel esteem is diminished and his

or her sense o powerlessness is increased.Examples include:

• denial (the most common deensemechanism) – denying that the person isexperiencing negative consequences andthat the person has lost control over theuse and amount o drug o choice

• projection – blaming others and eventsthat cause the person to use the drugo choice

• rationalization – using excuses to support

the use o the drug o choice

• social or amily complications – the drugo choice may replace people (amily, riends,work) as the chie source o comort, nurtureand object o loyalty leading to socialisolation, increased secrecy, inconsistentmoods and loss o people who wereimportant in the person’s lie.

Dependency

• physical − the user’s body has become soaccustomed to the presence o the drugthat when it is no longer used, withdrawalsymptoms occur. These may be mild, such assneezing and a runny nose, to very severe,

such as potentially atal convulsions. Theseverity o withdrawal increases with the levelo the drug taken and the duration o its use

• psychological − users, though notexperiencing withdrawal symptoms uponcessation o use, nonetheless believe thatthey cannot unction without the drug andcrave it.

Drugs

Any drug, substance, chemical or agent the use

or possession o which is unlawul in Canadaor requires a personal prescription rom alicensed treating physician, any nonprescriptionmedication lawully sold in Canada and any drugparaphernalia.


Services that are designed to help employeesand their amilies who are experiencing personalproblems such as the use o alcohol and drugs.These are also organizations that have theability to put a rehabilitation program in place.Examples include Employee Assistance Programs(EAP) and Employee and Family AssistancePrograms (EFAP).

Rehabilitation program

A program tailored to the needs o an individualthat may include education, counselling andresidential care oered to assist a person tocomply with the alcohol and drug work rule.

Tolerance

An adaptation o the body to the presence o adrug. When tolerance occurs, the body requiresgreater amounts o the drug to produce thedesired eect.

What is enabling?

While we may genuinely want to help aworker with a perormance problem thatis related to alcohol or drug use, otenby our actions or inaction we allow theproblem to continue unaddressed.

There are many reasons that may preventor deter us rom addressing alcohol or drugrelated perormance problems. One o the mostcommon reasons is that we want to protect theworker rom the potential consequences o hisor her actions, such as loss o employment or



damage to the worker’s reputation and sel-esteem. This is called “enabling.” Enabling isa natural reaction that many o us experiencewhen we see someone who is in trouble or pain.

Ironically, by ailing to deal directly with theissue, we may be exposing the worker, other

team members and ourselves to even greaterconsequences (namely injury or death) whenthe perormance issue becomes or may becomea saety issue, which is inevitably the case in awork environment such as ours.

Enabling is an easy trap to all into, particularlywhen it involves perormance issues in a team.First, there is comort in numbers, which causesus to wait or someone else in the team to raiseor address the issue. Second, as social beings wenaturally avoid confict. Ignoring the situationis a common avoidance method. Another is todeer dealing with it by making adjustmentsand compromises, hoping that it will somehowresolve itsel without confict or our involvement.

In either case, we end up protecting the workerwith the perormance problem and exposingourselves and the team to unnecessary anxietyand risk. Furthermore, we prevent the workerrom taking the steps necessary to resolve theproblem and rom experiencing the associatedlearning and development to help reduce therisk o reoccurrence.

Breaking the cycle o enabling

When perormance issues arise in a team, and inparticular the issues relate to a team member’suse o alcohol or drugs, it is important or theemployer, team supervisor and other teammembers to avoid enabling behaviors by:

• recognizing that enabling behaviors do notsolve perormance issues, they allow them tocontinue and oten result in them worsening

• realizing that the sooner perormance issuesare addressed (particularly sensitive ones)the easier they are to resolve

• remembering that everyone on the team,including the worker with the perormanceproblem, shares a common objective – tocreate a healthy and sae team environment

• implementing a policy that leads by exampleand is consistent or all workers regardless owhat title they may have

• ensuring that the company also leads byexample

• making sure that all instances requiring analcohol and drug test are assessed based ontheir individual circumstances.

Addressing perormance issues

Supervisors’ roles and responsibilities

Every supervisor’s prime responsibility on a teamis to help manage the perormance o the otherteam members, by ensuring that:

• job understanding − each team member hasa clear understanding o the expected level operormance required or his or her job

• job skills − each team member has the basecompetencies and skills required to achievethe expected level o perormance

• job perormance − perormance thatconsistently exceeds the expected level operormance is promptly recognized andrewarded, and perormance that consistently

or sporadically alls below the expected levelis promptly addressed and resolved.

In their leadership role, supervisors need to besensitive to changes in behaviour or perormanceo a ellow team member that may be relatedto alcohol or drug use o the workplace, and tobe amiliar with the support systems within thecompany designed to assist both the supervisorand that team member in dealing with theissue in a constructive and eective manner.The process to be ollowed in addressing and

resolving alcohol and drug related perormanceissues is discussed in the next section.

Where a supervisor believes that a worker’sperormance or behaviour problem is relatedto alcohol or drug use o the workplace, it isnot the supervisor’s role or responsibility tomake any urther assessment or diagnosis orto provide counselling to the worker. In suchcases, the supervisor should seek the assistanceo his or her human resources representative,manager or both.

It is also inappropriate and counterproductiveor a supervisor to judge or evaluate whethera worker’s behaviour is morally or sociallyacceptable. Supervisors must remain objectiveby ocusing on the acts o each case and not lettheir personal views on alcohol and drugs aecttheir judgment and actions.

Whenever a supervisor believes that alcoholor drug use by a worker may be impactingwork perormance, then the basis or ocusor the intervention or discussion with theemployee should be specic work perormanceindicators. The ollowing sections look atbasic undamentals o how to manage workperormance issues.



SymptomsJob behaviours

Changes in appearanceMood changes

Decreased productivityAbsenteeism

Incident/accidentsChanges in behaviour

Poor relations with others

CausesComplex personal andwork-related problems

Marital problemsJob-related problems

Legal problems

Use of alcohol or drugsFinancial problemsMedical problems

Parent-child problems

Managing perormance issues

Addressing alcohol or drug relatedperormance issues is simply anothercomponent o perormance management.It does not require any new skills other thanan understanding o the application o the

alcohol and drug guidelines and policy. Theollowing discussion is a good opportunity orsupervisors to reresh their memories and skillsin the area o perormance management. Thisdiscussion will also explain how addressingsuch issues alls within the usual perormancemanagement process.

Perormance and behaviour issues that are ormay be related to alcohol or drug use o theworkplace should be identied, documented,addressed and resolved using essentially thesame process as any other perormance concern.

Iceberg concepto employeeperormance problems

• Step one – Identiy substandardperormance Supervisors are responsible or monitoringworker perormance and addressing situationswhere perormance consistently or sporadicallyalls below the expected level o perormance.

Perormance issues can arise in a worker’scareer or a variety o reasons. Deterioratingwork perormance can be caused by a workrelated problem (such as a confict with ateam member or uncertainty about jobresponsibilities or employment security) orby personal problems (such as marital ornancial stress or the use o alcohol or drugs).



Changes inappearance

Unusual untidinessYawning excessively

Slurred speechSleepiness

Changes in appearanceafter lunch or breaks

Mood changesIrritable

Complains excessivelyabout othersSuspicious

Depressed or anxiousEmotionally unsteady

AbsenteeismAcceleration of absenteeism

or tardinessFrequent unreported absences

Unusually high incident

of colds, flu, etc.Requesting to leave

work early

Decreasedproductivity

Lapses in concentrationInconsistent quality of work

Difficulty recalling instructions

Poor judgmentDifficulty handlingcomplex tasks

Incidents/accidents

Taking needless risksDisregard for the safety

of othersIncreased

incidents/accidents

Relationshipswith others

Complaints from co-workersPersistent job transfersOverreaction to real or

imagined criticismAvoiding or withdrawing

from peersComplaints of problems

at home

Changes inbehaviour

Argumentative

WithdrawnTalkative

Violent behaviourExcessive time spent

on the phoneAvoidance

Noticeable and prolonged deviation in aworker’s standard o perormance or usualbehaviour can sometimes be the result ouse o alcohol or drugs. Behaviours thatmay be symptomatic o alcohol or drug usecan appear singularly or in combination, asshown in the gure below.

However, it is important or supervisorsto understand that a decline in workperormance does not necessarily meana worker has a problem associated withthe use o alcohol or drugs. For example,some o the behaviours identied in thissupervisors’ guide may indicate problemsnot related to alcohol or drug use, such asdiabetes, high blood pressure, etc.

As mentioned previously, it is not theresponsibility o the supervisor to determinewhether or not a worker’s perormanceproblem is a consequence o the useo alcohol or drugs o the workplace.The supervisor’s responsibility is limitedto monitoring work perormance and

identiying, documenting and addressingperormance problems in accordance withthe company’s existing discipline policy.

Instead o looking or behaviours that mayindicate a problem related to alcohol anddrug use, supervisors should concentrateon identiying and documenting changesin a worker’s job perormance withoutmaking moral judgments or assuming therole o counsellor.



• Step two – Document perormanceand behaviour concerns Once a potential perormance problemhas been identied, the supervisor mustcontinue to monitor the worker’s behaviourand document what is observed.

All workers experience bad days ortemporary periods where their perormancemay slip or a variety o reasons associatedwith the normal challenges o lie. Whatdistinguishes perormance problems, whichmay be related to alcohol or drug use or tosome other serious cause, rom these normaland regular occurrences is the ormation oa pattern, either continuous or repeating.Documentation allows a supervisor toproperly record and identiy trends that mayindicate a perormance problem requiring

special attention. This documentation iscritical because a supervisor cannot requestan alcohol and drug test or a workerwithout showing to the manager the propersupport or that request.

When documenting perormance,supervisors should:

1. Keep a daily journal o the worker’sbehaviour. Record not only negativebehaviours or substandard jobperormance but also cases where

the worker has met or exceededexpectations. By keeping a daily log, asupervisor can more easily see changesor patterns in a worker’s behaviour overan extended period o time.

2. Keep all inormation strictlycondential. Records o perormanceshould be kept out o sight o otherworkers and should be saely stored andlocked when not in use.

3. Follow the ve w’s (who, what,

where, when and why). Recordspecic details o observed behaviour,and ensure that such observations areobjective and ree o personal biasor judgment. Think o yoursel as anewspaper reporter – document onlywhat you see.

4. Relate all observations to jobperormance. Explain in measurableterms how a worker is perorming inrelation to agreed upon expectations suchas job descriptions, goals or objectives.

5. Keep track o issues andcommunication. Maintain achronological account o perormanceissues and problems as well as meetingsand coaching sessions with theworker and related interactions andimprovements.

It is important that the supervisor keepin mind that his or her job is to monitor job perormance and record relevantacts. By identiying and addressingsubstandard perormance, the supervisoris taking the rst steps in assistingthe worker to improve his or herperormance.

• Step three – Meet with the workerto discuss observations andconcerns

Discussing a perormance problem witha worker is oten the most dicult anduncomortable step in the perormancemanagement process. A supervisor mustovercome that discomort and meet withthe worker once sucient inormation hasbeen gathered to adequately discuss theperormance issue. This means establishingclear goals and expectations or the interview.

It should be noted that, in keeping with thealcohol and drug policy, a representative o

a union or employee organization o whicha worker is a member and with whom theemployer has a bargaining relationship,may attend any meeting or discussion i theworker wishes the representative to attend.

Supervisors must also be prepared or aworker’s anger and denial. It is commonor a person who is conronted with aproblem to deny it either because theydo not recognize that their behaviour isinappropriate or because they ear reprisalor disciplinary action. At that point, the

supervisor must be very careul not to enterinto a debate or argument with the worker.

It usually helps to review the goals o theinterview with the worker at the start othe meeting to ensure that the workerunderstands that the purpose o theinterview is to discuss a deterioration in job perormance that the supervisor hasobserved and documented. By ocusing onthe acts in an objective, proessional andconcerned manner, the supervisor should

be able to diuse any anger so that theproblem can be discussed in a calm andconstructive manner.



Tips or good interviews

1. Have clear goals or the interview.

2. Review documentation and inormationprior to interview.

3. Conduct the interview in private and

without interruption.

4. Direct the course o the interview.Do not allow the worker to directthe discussion away rom his or herperormance.

5. Discuss positive aspects o the worker’sperormance, as well as reviewingdocumented concerns.

6. Explain the consequences o notaddressing and resolving substandardperormance.

7. Conclude the interview with a positiveoutlook. Communicate your condencethat the worker can improve his or herperormance.

• Step our – Develop an action plan Developing an action plan to correct aperormance problem is an essential stepin managing serious or potentially seriousissues, particularly those that may be relatedto alcohol and drug use o the workplace.However, simple action plans can also

be used in addressing relatively minorperormance issues.

Ideally, the action plan should be developedand signed jointly by the supervisor andthe worker. It should also be identiedas one o the goals o the interview andcompleted at the end o the initial meetingwhenever possible. Alternatively, it shouldbe done as soon ater the initial meeting asis reasonably practicable.

The action plan should address very clearlythe ollowing matters:

1. A description o the perormanceproblem to be addressed by the actionplan.

2. A description o the level o perormanceexpected o the worker having regardto the worker’s training and experience,years o service, level and pastperormance.

3. The course o action and schedule to

bring the worker’s perormance tothe expected level including, whereapplicable, targets and associated dates.

4. Special requirements or support, suchas internal or external training coursesor the involvement o an employeeassistance services provider.

5. The role o the supervisor and the role othe worker in the successul completion

o the action plan.

• Step ve – Continue to documentperormance and conduct ollow-upinterviews Once the action plan has been completed,the supervisor must continue to monitor theworker’s perormance to ensure that thegoals and schedule o the action plan arebeing met. Using the techniques describedearlier in this section, the supervisor needsto objectively and thoroughly document

relevant behaviour and monitor the progressor status o the worker’s perormanceagainst the agreed upon expectations.

The supervisor should conduct regularollow-up meetings to review the worker’sperormance and to discuss progress. It isimportant that the worker be supportedand encouraged during this time. Follow-upmeetings provide an opportunity to reinorcepositive behaviours as well as oeringassistance in areas where progress is lacking.

The requency o ollow-up meetings can beexpressly addressed in the action plan.

• Step six – Assessing the outcomeand need or urther action

• When the plan objectives are metI the worker’s perormance improvesto the expected level in accordancewith the action plan, then thesupervisor’s responsibilities revert tonormal monitoring and coaching with

perormance eedback occurring duringregular perormance review sessions.

• When the plan objectives arenot metI the worker ails or later reuses tomeet the requirements o the action planand bring his or her perormance to theexpected level, or i the worker meetsthe requirements o the action plan butis unable to sustain the expected level operormance, then the supervisor should

proceed with a ormal “corrective actionprocess” i the supervisor has not alreadyadopted that process.



• When the ailure may be related toalcohol or drug useI the supervisor suspects that theworker’s ailure, reusal or inability toachieve or maintain the expected level operormance may be related to alcoholor drug use o the workplace, then

the supervisor should meet with theworker to discuss that concern. At thatmeeting, the supervisor should reer tothe documented behaviours that he orshe eels may be symptomatic o alcoholor drug use. The supervisor should thensuggest that the worker seek assistanceo an employee assistance servicesprogram by sel-reerral and allowthe worker reasonable time to do so.Sel-reerral to an employee assistanceservices program usually involves aworker or amily member attending

the program without the knowledge orassistance o anyone else. Depending onthe circumstances, the supervisor mayalso oer to help the worker in seekingthat assistance.

Alternatively, i the supervisor wouldpreer to have conrmation that theworker is under the care o an employeeassistance services program, then thesupervisor can initiate an “inormalreerral” to the program. An inormal

reerral means a reerral o a workerto the program by another personsuch as the worker’s leader, health andwellness advisor or human resourcesrepresentative. An inormal reerral ismade on the express understanding thatthe program’s personnel will only conrmto the leader or other person requestingthe reerral whether or not the workerhas attended the program as requested.

I the worker’s perormance does notimprove, the supervisor can also initiate a

ormal reerral to an employee assistanceservices program where the program’scounsellor provides the supervisor withreports on the progress o the worker.

As noted in this supervisors’ guide, i asupervisor has a reasonable suspicionat any time that a worker’s ailure tocorrect a chronic perormance problem isdue to the worker using alcohol or drugsat work or being under the infuenceo alcohol or drugs at work, then the

supervisor should so advise the workerand allow the worker an opportunity toprovide an explanation. However, i theworker’s explanation does not dispel orcontradict the supervisor’s suspicion,then the worker should be required tosubmit to an alcohol and drug test.

Questions and answers (to becompleted by supervisors)

• What communications do you undertaketo inorm your team about the alcohol anddrug guidelines?

• What do you currently do to monitorbehaviour and perormance within your team?

• What signs or indications in a worker’sperormance or behaviour would alert youto the possibility that such perormanceor behaviour may be related to alcohol ordrug use?

Supervisor and team support

Returning to work – What can you doto help?

In the cases where a worker has admitted tobeing under the care o an employee assistanceservices program or where a worker was in arehabilitation program as part o an oer oconditional rehire, there are things we can do assupervisors to make the return to work processsuccessul in the long term.

The manner in which a supervisor manages aworker who has returned to work should not bedierent than management o other sta.

Good leadership involves establishing clear jobperormance expectations, open communicationand mutual respect. Supervisors must be awareo the condential nature o the situation andshould not disclose or discuss the nature othe worker’s problem or the details o his orher absence with other sta members. Thereturning worker needs to make his or her owndecisions about sharing this personal inormationwith other members o the team.

The return to work interview

When a worker returns to work ollowingrehabilitation or an alcohol or drug problem,an interview between the supervisor ordesignated team members and the returningworker should take place immediately. Thisinterview should include:

• a discussion o the worker’s job descriptionnoting any changes stemming rom thepersonal action plan (i.e. limited duties,arrangements or continued counselling)

• a clear description o expectations andspecic areas that require improvement



• development o a ollow-up process, so thatboth the supervisor and worker know whenregular ollow-up sessions are to occur andwhat will be discussed

• a provision o time i the worker wishesto comment on his or her experience in

counselling or the rehabilitation program.This discussion time may involve the workerproposing changes in how he or she intendsto handle work-related stress

• an oer o support – this interview providesan opportunity to establish a new, positiveworking relationship based on a solidunderstanding o realistic and clear jobperormance expectations.

It is important to remember that the rst severalweeks o a worker’s return to work are crucial in

setting a tone and atmosphere o cooperationand support.

Understanding what has changed

People who have experienced negative eectsrom their use o alcohol or drugs may developproblems in many areas. For some, social andamily relationships have suered, while othershave experienced nancial, legal or physicalhealth problems. Such an individual may bein the process o making a number o major

liestyle changes.

These changes will not occur overnight – newhealth-related skills must be learned. Family,social and work expectations and relationshipsneed to be re-negotiated and re-dened.

What is a relapse?

Seventy-six per cent o relapses occur whenindividuals are trying to cope with negativeemotional states such as loneliness, anger andboredom (many o these problems may have

been contributing actors in the individual’sinitial use). Most people who have experiencedproblems rom their alcohol or drug use mayreturn to drinking or drug use not because theywant to, but because they perceive themselvesas having no other acceptable choices. Relapseindicates that the individual has not yetdeveloped alternatives or dealing with day-to-day stresses.

Signs o a potential relapse may include:

• emotional outbursts, the person over-reacts to common situations and appearsto be stressed

• physical and social isolation

• irritation with riends and co-workers,relationships with other workers becomestrained

• interruption o daily routines − the individualmay change their normal eating and sleepingpatterns leading to listlessness and atigue

• development o an “I don’t care” attitude

• open rejection o help

• premature cessation o counselling and/orattendance o sel-help groups.

Access to help or support

It is important to recognize that supervisorsdo not have all the answers and may requirehelp or support rom other resources within

the company. There are a number o resourcesand/or support systems that can assist us inaddressing alcohol or drug related concerns.

• Employee assistance servicesprograms The aim o employee assistance services isto assist the worker and amily members toobtain diagnosis, counsel and treatment orproblems that can aect a worker’s or amilymember’s ability to cope. The programplaces emphasis on prevention and earlydetection o potential problems beore theybecome a threat to the worker and the job.

Workers are encouraged to seek help underthe designated employee assistance servicesprogram or any alcohol or drug relatedproblem. Workers can contact employeeassistance services on their own, or with theassistance o their manager, supervisor orhuman resources representative.

In addition to providing counselling andreerral services to workers and amily

members who are experiencing problems,employee assistance services can alsoprovide assistance to co-workers and/orsupervisors who may be concerned about anindividual’s behaviour and/or actions but areunsure as to what to do.

Helpul literature on a wide variety o health,behavioral and lie style concerns is availablethrough the employee assistance servicesprogram. Inormation will be mailed on a“personal and private” basis as requested byworkers or amily members.



W

O R K E R S ’ G U I D E

Alcohol and Drug

Awareness for Workers



WORKERS’ GUIDE:ALCOHOL AND DRUGAWARENESS FOR WORKERS


Background

The construction industry is committedto ensuring a sae work environment orall workers, ree rom alcohol and drugs.To maintain this commitment, a group ostakeholders rom the construction industrycame together in 1998 to develop the CanadianModel or Providing a Sae Workplace.

The Canadian Model was revised and urtherenhanced in May 2001 and October 2005based on experience, new inormation and the

emerging law and public policy in this area.The Canadian Model establishes standardizedalcohol and drug guidelines and a policy thatwill ensure airness and consistency throughoutthe industry. It also helps to standardize theapproach, testing, application and rehabilitationo workers.

The intent o this awareness package is tohelp workers understand the alcohol and drugguidelines and work rule and their role inensuring its success.

Roles and responsibilities o workers

The successul implementation o the CanadianModel is the shared responsibility o ownercompanies, contractors, workers and labourproviders. As part o this shared responsibility,workers must:

• have an understanding o the alcohol anddrug work rule

• take responsibility to ensure their own saetyand the saety o others

• ensure they comply with the work standardsas part o their obligation to perorm workactivities in a sae manner

• comply with the work rule and ollowappropriate treatment i deemed necessary

• use medications responsibly, be awareo potential side eects and notiy theirsupervisor o any potential unsae sideeects where applicable

• encourage their peers or co-workers to seekhelp when there is a potential breach orbreach o policy.

Alcohol and drug guidelines

The alcohol and drug guidelines are based onour undamental principles:

• Shared responsibility or saety Both individuals and companies in the

construction industry have a sharedresponsibility or saety in the workplace.The Occupational Health and Saety Act oAlberta imposes a legal obligation on allworkers to protect the health and saety othemselves and other workers.

• Behaviour on and o the job By necessity, given the nature o operationsin the construction industry, workers musthave regard to conduct or behaviour on ando the job that may adversely aect theirability to saely perorm their duties at work.This specically extends to the consumptionor use o alcohol and drugs as addressed bythe Canadian Model.

• Balancing the needs o saety andindividual rightsThe interests o ensuring saety in theworkplace and respecting the rights o allworkers are given equal consideration. Forexample, the Canadian Model balanceshuman rights protecting individuals withdisabilities (including alcohol and drug

addiction) by providing or assessment,rehabilitation and return to work processes.The Canadian Model also balances privacyconcerns by ensuring any inormationcollected is used solely or the reasonablepurpose or which it was collected.

• Encourage worker sel-reerral Workers who eel they may be experiencingproblems associated with alcohol or druguse should voluntarily seek help underan employee assistance services program

which has been identied or put in placeby the company, labour provider, employerorganization or worker association.



What is enabling?

While we may genuinely want to help a workerwith an alcohol or drug problem, oten byour actions or inaction we allow the problemto continue unaddressed. Many motives mayprevent or deter us rom addressing alcohol

or drug related perormance problems. Oneo the most common is protecting the workerrom potential consequences o his or heractions, like loss o employment or damage tothe worker’s reputation and sel esteem. This iscalled “enabling.”

Enabling is an easy trap to all into, particularlywhen it involves perormance issues in a team.First, there is comort in numbers which causesus to wait or someone else in the team to raiseor address the issue. Second, as social beings wenaturally avoid confict. Ignoring the situationis a common avoidance method. Another is todeer dealing with it by making adjustments andcompromises, hoping it will somehow resolveitsel without confict or our involvement.

Ironically, by not dealing directly with the issue, wemay be exposing the worker, other team membersand ourselves to even greater consequences(namely injury or death) when a perormance issuebecomes a saety issue, which is inevitable in awork environment like ours. Also, we prevent theworker rom taking the steps necessary to resolve

the problem and rom experiencing the associatedlearning and development to help reduce the risko reoccurrence.

Breaking the cycle o enabling

When perormance issues arise in a team, and inparticular when those perormance issues relateto a team member’s use o alcohol or drugs,it is important or the team members to avoidenabling behaviours by:

• recognizing that enabling behaviours do not

solve perormance issues, instead enablingbehaviours allow perormance issues tocontinue and oten result in them worsening

• realizing that the sooner perormance issuesare addressed (particularly sensitive ones)the easier they are to resolve

• remembering that everyone on the team,including the worker with the perormanceproblem, shares a common objective– creating a healthy and sae team

environment.

Common denitionsand important concepts

Drugs

Any drug, substance, chemical or agent the useor possession o which is unlawul in Canada

or requires a personal prescription rom alicensed treating physician, any nonprescriptionmedication lawully sold in Canada and anydrug paraphernalia.

Addiction

Traditionally, this term has been synonymouswith physical dependence and ull-fedgedwithdrawal symptoms. Addiction may becharacterized by one or more o the ollowing:change in tolerance, loss o control, blackouts,physical complications, psychological symptomsand social or amily complications.

Dependency

There are two components involved with theconcept o drug dependency:

• physical − The user’s body has become soaccustomed to the presence o the drugthat when it is no longer used, withdrawalsymptoms occur

• psychological − Users upon cessationo use believe that they cannot unctionwithout the drug and crave it.


Services that are designed to help employeesand their amilies who are experiencing personalproblems such as alcohol and drug abuse. Theseare also organizations that have the ability toput a rehabilitation program in place. Examplesinclude employee assistance programs (EAP) andemployee and amily assistance programs (EFAP).

Rehabilitation program

A program tailored to the needs o an individualwhich may include education, counselling andresidential care oered to assist a person tocomply with the alcohol and drug work rule.

Tolerance

An adaptation o the body to the presence o adrug. When tolerance occurs, the body requiresgreater amounts o the drug to produce the

same eect.



Returning to work

People who have experienced negative eectsrom their use o alcohol or drugs may developproblems in many areas. For some, social andamily relationships have suered, while othershave experienced nancial, legal or physical

health problems. Such individuals may be in theprocess o making a number o major liestylechanges to overcome these eects. Thesechanges will not occur overnight and amily,social and work expectations and relationshipsneed to be re-negotiated and re-dened. Therst several weeks o a worker’s return to workare crucial in setting a tone and atmosphere ocooperation and support.

What is a relapse?

Most people who have experienced problemsrom their alcohol or drug use may return todrinking or drug use, not because they want tobut because they perceive themselves as havingno other acceptable choices. Relapse indicatesthat the individual has not yet developedalternatives to the harmul behaviour or dealingwith day-to-day stresses. Seventy-six per cento relapses occur when individuals are tryingto cope with negative emotional states suchas loneliness, anger and boredom, many owhich may have been contributing actors in theindividual’s initial use o alcohol or drugs.

Signs o a potential relapse may includeemotional outbursts, physical and socialisolation, irritation with riends and co-workers,interruption o daily routines, open rejection ohelp, and premature quitting o counselling orattendance at sel-help groups.

Access to help or support

It is important to recognize that team membersdo not have all the answers and may requirehelp or support rom other resources. Regardlesso whether you are a worker experiencing aproblem or a concerned co-worker or supervisor,there are a number o resources and/or supportsystems that can assist you in addressing alcoholor drug related concerns.

• Employee assistance services Workers are encouraged to seek help orany alcohol or drug related problem roman employee assistance services programthat has been identied by the company.Workers can contact employee assistance

services on their own, or with the assistanceo their manager, supervisor, leader, humanresources representative, or the occupationalhealth centre i one is established. Inaddition to providing counselling and reerralservices to workers and amily members

who are experiencing problems, employeeassistance services can also provideassistance to co-workers who may beconcerned about a worker’s behaviour butare unsure about what to do.

Helpul literature on a wide variety o health,

behavioral and lie style concerns is availablethrough employee assistance servicesprograms. See Section 4.0 o the CanadianModel or a list o available resources.Inormation will be mailed on a “personaland private” basis as requested by workersor amily members.

modelo canadiense de seguridad

Documents