To the Editor:
Anybody who's been in Fort McMurray in the past decade would not be surprised to learn that drug abuse is a big, big problem for the companies that operate there.
It's there in the streets - an almost palpable subculture of drug abuse that helps amuse bored workers, who are living hundreds, or even thousands, of kilometres away from family, tied to the tedium of repetitious jobs. But trying to curb the drug culture's excesses has given one company a rough lesson on how far it can go trampling on workers' rights in the name of safety.
Suncor Energy decided the drug abuse has to be curbed, and the best way to do that was to randomly test thousands of unionized oil sands workers in Alberta for drugs and alcohol. After all, it has argued, three of seven deaths at its oil sands operations near Fort McMurray since 2000 involved workers under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
But in a classic case of the ends failing to justify the means, Suncor's get-clean campaign has run into a wall of resistance from the union that represents its workers. In October, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers union Local 707 won an injunction against a testing policy that was implemented during the summer. A judge ordered the matter be settled through arbitration.
Suncor's initiative was an attempt to extend its previous programs to screen out offenders. The company has the right to test job applicants and people suspected of being impaired for drugs and alcohol, and it offers counselling programs to help employees with substance abuse programs.
The union, however, sees the proposed expansion of testing as an infringement on the rights of the 3,400 unionized workers at Suncor.
"We know that random drug and alcohol testing does not improve safety outcomes and that it is clearly an invasion of privacy," CEP Local 707 President Roland LeFort said in a statement. "There are a number of other measures, including education and rehabilitation, that we strongly support and will work constructively with Suncor to implement."
Neither does Suncor appear to have legislation or jurisdiction on its side. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has a policy on drug testing. Among its points, it lists occasions were drug testing may be included "only if an employer can demonstrate they are bone fide occupational requirements":
Random alcohol testing of employees in safety-sensitive positions. Alcohol testing... can indicate actual impairment of ability to perform or fulfill the essential duties or requirements of the job. Random drug testing is prohibited because, given its technical limitations, drug testing can only detect the presence of drugs and not if or when an employee may have been impaired by drug use.
Drug or alcohol testing for "reasonable cause" or "post-accident," e.g. where there are reasonable grounds to believe there is an underlying problem of substance abuse or where an accident has occurred due to impairment from drugs or alcohol, provided that testing is a part of a broader program of medical assessment, monitoring and support.
Mandatory disclosure of present or past drug or alcohol dependency or abuse may be permissible for employees holding safety-sensitive positions... Generally, employees not in safety-sensitive positions should not be required to disclose past alcohol or drug problems.
Suncor may be trying to break new ground with its random mandatory tests, but it is trying to forge ground where many other companies have failed. And there's a good reason for that, because Suncor's idea is offside.
While words like "rampant" and "widespread" are commonly used to describe drug and alcohol abuse in the oil sands environment, it would be unfair to say it is universal. Under mandatory testing, clean-living and innocent workers would be forced to undergo testing, even though there is no indication that they are engaging in such behaviour. It is nothing more than guilt by (involuntary) association.
This dispute is not a question of stopping substance abuse versus allowing it to run amok. Rather, random testing is nothing more than a lazy and convenient shortcut to managing one's staff. The more difficult - but fairer - approach is to look for evidence of impairment by closely observing workers' behaviour. If reasonable grounds exist to conduct a test, then it is appropriate to do so.
The HRC hinted as a resolution through its suggestion that random testing may be acceptable "if tailored to individual circumstances."
If Suncor can stop painting its employees with such a broad brush, then it might find a greater willingness among workers to co-operate in curbing this vexing safety threat.
Doug Firby, Troy Media Corp.
