[19] Moreover, the bulk of the current authority (both case law and arbitration) holds that it is unreasonable to randomly drug test even those employees
in safety sensitive positions in a dangerous workplace.
In a workplace that is dangerous, employers are generally entitled to test individual employees who
occupy safety sensitive positions without having to show that alternative measures have been exhausted if there is «reasonable cause» to believe that the employee is impaired while on duty, where the employee has been directly involved in a workplace accident or significant incident, or where the employee is returning to work after treatment for substance abuse.
Research from around the world has found that workplace accidents, injuries and errors all increase this Monday — so those in less
safety sensitive positions such as accounting and finance or IT should also be vigil for mistakes.
The Court of Appeal overturned the decision and concluded that an employer can implement a policy for mandatory random alcohol testing so long as (1) the workplace is «inherently dangerous», and (2) the policy only applies to individuals
in safety sensitive positions.
In February of 2006, Irving Pulp & Paper Mill («Irving») had implemented a random alcohol testing policy whereby 10 % of workers who held
safety sensitive positions were to be randomly selected for breathalyzer testing over the course of a year.
In doing so, the Supreme Court overturned the New Brunswick Court of Appeal's decision that had concluded that an employer can implement a policy for mandatory random alcohol testing so long as (1) the workplace is «inherently dangerous», and (2) the policy only applies to individuals in
safety sensitive positions.
As a result of this balancing act, drug and alcohol testing is most often restricted to employees in
safety sensitive positions, and even then, tests are usually permissible only after an accident or a near - miss incident.
In a not insignificant footnote to the issue of drug and alcohol testing in the workplace, in Ontario, the Toronto Transit Commission was successful in defending an injunction brought by Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, attempting to prevent the implementation of random drug and alcohol testing in
safety sensitive positions.
In that case, the employer had implemented a random drug and alcohol testing policy for employees in
safety sensitive positions, arguing that there was a pervasive drug and alcohol problem in its workplace, thereby justifying the implementation of the policy.
The policy implemented by Imperial Oil included pre-employment drug testing; mandatory drug and alcohol testing if there was reasonable cause, an accident or a near accident; and random drug and alcohol testing for employees in
safety sensitive positions.
In order for the policy to be reasonable, drug and alcohol testing must be limited to employees in
safety sensitive positions and only occur in circumstances where:
By law,
safety sensitive positions in select industries are regulated, resulting in unique past employment verification requirements.