• About
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • News
  • Students
  • Alumni
  • Payments
Background Image
Bennett Jones Logo 100 Years
  • People
  • Expertise
  • Knowledge
  • Search
  • Menu
  • Search Mobile
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
View all
Practices
Corporate Litigation Regulatory Tax View all
Industries
Capital Projects Energy Funds & Finance Mining View all
Advisory
Crisis & Risk Management Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) Governmental Affairs & Public Policy
View Client Work
Insights News Events
New Energy Economy Series COVID-19 Resource Centre Business Law Talks Podcast
Subscribe
Bennett Jones Centennial Menu
People
Practices
Industries
Advisory Services
Client Work
About
Offices
News
Careers
Insights
Law Students
Events
Search
Alumni
Payments
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
 
Blog

The Supreme Court of Canada Provides Guidance on Random Alcohol Testing

June 19, 2013

In Irving Pulp & Paper, Limited v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30, a decision released on June 14, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed the limited ability of management to unilaterally impose random alcohol testing policies for employees in a dangerous workplace unless the imposition of any such policy is a "proportionate response" that balances the legitimate safety concerns of management with the privacy interests of employees.

In its decision, the Supreme Court of Canada reviewed whether the management rights clause of Irving's collective agreement was sufficiently broad to enable Irving to unilaterally adopt a policy whereby ten percent of employees in safety-sensitive positions at its paper mill would be randomly selected for unannounced alcohol (breathalyzer) testing.

While the Court split (6/3) in its decision, both the majority and minority generally agreed to the tests to be applied when considering if the arbitration board's decision was reasonable: namely, the use of the "KVP test", which provides, in part, that any rule unilaterally imposed by management in a unionized workplace must be consistent with the collective agreement and be reasonable if the breach of the rule results in disciplinary action and the use of the 'balancing of interests' approach when assessing such reasonableness.

Applying these tests, the majority of the Supreme Court held that Irving failed to demonstrate "the requisite problems with dangerousness or increased safety concerns such as workplace alcohol use that would justify universal random testing".  Accordingly, the majority found that Irving's policy was an unreasonable exercise of management rights under the collective agreement: the "uncertain" and "minimal" safety gains Irving obtained did not outweigh the significant impact that the random tests had on its employees' privacy.

In a strongly worded dissenting judgment, the minority concluded that the arbitration board that had struck down Irving's random alcohol testing policy had "elevat(ed) the threshold of evidence Irving was required to introduce in order to justify a policy of random testing" and thus that its decision to strike down the policy was unreasonable.

The minority concluded that evidence of a problem of alcohol misuse at the Irving mill was sufficient to justify random testing of employees in safety sensitive positions (rather than evidence of a significant or serious problem as required by the board), and that the requirement imposed by the board that evidence of alcohol use be tied or causally linked to the accident, injury and near-miss history at the plant was patently absurd.

While the Court split on the extent of the evidence of a problem with alcohol that was required to meet the tests, it is clear that some evidence of a problem, even in safety sensitive environments, will be required.

In view of the decision in Irving Pulp and Paper, and in particular the comment by the majority of the Supreme Court that "an employer would be justifiably pessimistic that a policy unilaterally imposing random alcohol testing in the absence of reasonable cause would survive arbitral scrutiny", management should be mindful of this decision when considering whether to unilaterally impose a random drug and/or alcohol testing policy at the workplace.  If such a policy has already been implemented, management may wish to review same in light of this decision.

PDF Download

Authors

  • Ranjan K. Agarwal Ranjan K. Agarwal, Partner
  • Stephen D. Burns Stephen D. Burns, Partner, Trademark Agent
  • J. Sébastien A. Gittens J. Sébastien A. Gittens, Partner, Trademark Agent

Spring 2022 Economic Outlook

Related Links

  • Insights
  • Media
  • Subscribe

Recent Posts

Blog

National Indigenous Economic Strategy Rebuilding Indigenous Economies

June 24, 2022
       

Blog

Achieving Net Zero by 2050: The MMV Plan as a Fundamental [...]

June 23, 2022
       

Blog

Anti-Money Laundering Rules Expanded to Include Payment [...]

June 21, 2022
       

Blog

Alberta Court Declines to Extend Limitation Period [...]

June 20, 2022
       

Blog

The Financial Innovation Act: Regulations and Coming [...]

June 20, 2022
       
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer 100 Years
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer 100 Years
About
  • Leadership
  • Diversity
  • Community
  • Innovation
  • Security
  • History
Offices
  • Calgary
  • Edmonton
  • Ottawa
  • Toronto
  • Vancouver
  • New York
Connect
  • Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Careers
  • Students
  • Alumni
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
© Bennett Jones LLP 2022. All rights reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use
Logo Bennett Jones