Is an employer policy requiring bi-weekly testing for COVID-19 a reasonable exercise of management rights, or is such a policy an unreasonable infringement on the workers’ rights?
In Caressant Care Nursing & Retirement Homes and Christian Labour Association of Canada (Covid Testing Grievance), Labour Arbitrator Dana Randall found that such a policy was reasonable.
Can they pee test me? In any discussion that I have concerning the legalization of cannabis, this is the question employees want answered. “Can I pee test them?” Is the question to which employers want answers.
In yet another case to look at the issue of random drug and alcohol tests, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v Toronto Transit Commission, 2017 ONSC 2078 (CanLII), Associate Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Frank Marrocco ruled that the TTC could continue its program of random testing pending the resolution of a labour grievance filed by the union.
(c) istock/BenGoode
Can an employee be fired for violating his company’s drugs and alcohol policy, if the reason he violated such a policy was because he was addicted to an illegal drug?
For many years, most Ontario employment and human rights lawyers would have hesitantly answered that question with a “probably not”. Those who practice management-side would have sighed in frustration while they provided such advice, while those who act for employees would have adamantly pointed to human rights’ legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of such a recognized disability.
In June of 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the case of Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30 (CanLII). In that case, Canada’s top court upheld a termination of employment on the basis that the employee had breached the company’s anti-alcohol and drugs policy.
Can an employee suffering from the disease of alcoholism be punished for her behaviour if her disease contributed to the behaviour under review? What if the employee is a police officer?
The issue of alcohol dependency among first responders is an interesting subject. Police officers are people, susceptible to any number of diseases and disabilities. Alcohol dependency has consistently been held to be a “disability” under human rights legislation. Human rights legislation prescribes that employers have a duty to accommodate disabilities, including alcohol dependency, to the point of undue hardship. So therefore, if a police officer has a problem with alcoholism her employer, the police, must accommodate that disability, correct?
In the case of Mansley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 389 (released April 7, 2016) the Federal Court was asked to judicially review a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to decline to investigate an allegation of adverse differential treatment by the RCMP on the basis of alcoholism and post-traumatic stress disorder.
In deciding to upheld the Commission’s decision the Honourable Justice B. Richard Bell held that the Commission’s decision, based on the findings of any investigation report, met the standard of reasonableness and fell within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law. Mr. Justice Bell was also satisfied that the investigator conducted a thorough and neutral analysis based on the various sources of information available to her and there was no bias, apprehension of bias or breach of procedural fairness.
