Arbitration over random drug and alcohol testing gets underway in Alberta

Posted by Andrew Carricato on January 16, 2013

In a December 10, 2012 Workplace Wire Blog, we posted about two high-profile cases that could change Canada’s random drug and alcohol testing laws, CEP, Local 707 v. Suncor in Alberta and CEP, Local 30 v. Irving Pulp and Paper Ltd. in New Brunswick.

The arbitration in the Suncor matter began on January 2, 2013 after being postponed at the request of local union president, Roland LeFort, for unspecified personal matters before the holidays. The hearing is expected to extend over the next few months.

The case dates back to October 2012, when the union was successful in obtaining an injunction from Alberta’s Courts preventing Suncor from rolling out a new random drug and alcohol testing policy for its employees at its oil sands operations in Fort McMurray. In November 2012, Alberta’s Court of Appeal, in a split decision, upheld the injunction in light of the upcoming arbitration.

The employer, Suncor, is arguing that random drug and alcohol testing for all employees is needed, saying that three of the seven deaths at its operations in Alberta since 2000 involved workers under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The union, on the other hand, is arguing the policy would violate the privacy and dignity of employees, as well as the terms of their collective agreement.

Continue Reading

Biased Workplace Investigation Warrants Punitive Damages, says Alberta Court of Appeal

Posted by Sonia Regenbogen on February 23, 2012

It is clear how important it is to conduct a proper workplace investigation.  It is also clear that failing to do so can scuttle an employer’s case for a just cause dismissal, expose an employer to Human Rights Code damages, and, depending on the harm actually suffered, create a risk of aggravated Keays damages as well.

According to a recent decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal, we also now know that an unfair investigation that is biased from the outset can ground an award of punitive damages, which courts reserve for only the most “malicious and high-handed misconduct that offends a court’s sense of decency.”

Continue Reading