A current Alberta Court docket of King's Bench determination upheld the termination of an worker for trigger after he failed a drug and alcohol take a look at and failed to just accept a substance abuse plan.

Employers can discover some reassurance concerning the enforceability of their drug and alcohol insurance policies, particularly the place these insurance policies are cheap, clear, properly communicated and utilized constantly. As well as, the place such insurance policies require ongoing remediation of violations (corresponding to an worker being subjected to random testing later), an worker has an obligation to cooperate. An worker's failure to cooperate with these insurance policies might be grounds for termination.

Quong's determination

In Quong v. Lafarge,[1] the Court docket dismissed a declare for unfair dismissal by an worker (Quong), upholding the employer's (Lafarge) determination to terminate for trigger.

Lafarge operates a safety-sensitive office, and Quong refused to take part within the office substance abuse plan (SAP) after testing constructive for THC following a office security incident. Quong had no earlier disciplinary points, however refused to take part within the SAP and was later fired for trigger by Lafarge.

Quong argued that he was unfairly dismissed by Lafarge and argued that: (1) Lafarge's drug and alcohol coverage (the Coverage) was not a time period of his employment contract; (2) the SAP and its obligatory two-year drug testing interval was an unwarranted invasion of privateness; (3) Lafarge didn’t act moderately; and, (4) Lafarge has no simply trigger for termination.

Justice Feasby rejected these arguments. As a substitute, it discovered that the Coverage was “cheap, unambiguous, properly revealed, constantly enforced, and the worker … kn[e]ought to have recognized concerning the coverage together with the implications of the violation.”[2] Quong had agreed to the Coverage for his continued employment with out protest, making the Coverage an implied time period of his employment contract. Quong had additionally acquired annual coaching on the Coverage since 2012 and had additionally communicated the Coverage to different staff in his duties as a Web site Superintendent.

Justice Feasby additionally mentioned the SAP was not an unwarranted invasion of privateness because it existed to find out if an worker had an habit that required therapy or lodging. Even when Quong used hashish off-site, Lafarge acted moderately, because the Coverage was supposed to advertise office security and forestall the danger of drug intoxication within the office. Moreover, although Quong had no earlier disciplinary issues, his “voluntary refusal” to take part in Politics constituted a repudiation of his employment contract.

Key suggestions for employers

  • An worker's failure to adjust to the phrases of a drug and alcohol coverage may assist grounds for termination.
  • Drug and alcohol insurance policies will be upheld as phrases of employment even when they aren’t explicitly included in an employment contract – significantly in safety-sensitive workplaces.
  • Employers ought to evaluation any insurance policies that aren’t expressly included within the employment contract, to make sure that there aren’t any conflicts or ambiguities arising between the coverage and the phrases of the employment contract.
  • Compliance with drug and alcohol insurance policies can have extreme penalties for workers. Employers should be vigilant in guaranteeing compliance with insurance policies and file and deal with incidents of non-compliance each time they happen.
  • Employers ought to plan, monitor and comply with up on annual coaching on drug and alcohol insurance policies for workers, as long-term employment with out protest might lead a court docket to uphold these insurance policies as phrases of employment. .

[1] Quong v Lafarge, 2024 ABKB 340.

[2] Stonham v Recycling Worx Inc, 2023 ABKB 629 at by 60-65.

https://www.osler.com/en/insights/blogs/employment-and-labour-law-blog/cannabis-in-safety-sensitive-positions-guidance-from-the-alberta-court-of-kings- financial institution/

Source link