May

Once again, the issue of drug and alcohol testing and policies will be subject to appeal, but this time before the Supreme Court of Canada, as it recently granted leave to appeal in Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation et al. This case (2015 ABCA 225), released in the summer of 2015, gave employers some much needed comfort regarding their ability to discipline or terminate employees in safety sensitive positions involved in a work place incident while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The case also caused employers to review their drug and alcohol polices to ensure they contained provisions allowing employees to self-report and seek rehabilitative help for their addictions prior to a work place accident, without fear of discipline. That aspect of the policy was a key consideration in that decision. This decision was welcomed, particularly by those in the construction industry where drug and alcohol issues are of key importance.

"An employee responsible for a minor, although unusual, accident in a company parking lot was justified in refusing to submit to an alcohol and drug test, a labour arbitrator has found. The employee was an electrician. His position was safety-sensitive. When backing up to park a vehicle, he backed into the only other vehicle in the parking lot. The employer demanded that he submit to a post-incident drug and alcohol test. The employee refused, citing advice that he had received from his union. The arbitrator found that nobody had thought that the employee was impaired. There were no signs of impairment. After the accident, the employee sat through a half-hour investigative meeting and ""could not give anyone in the meeting the slightest suggestion of impairment"". The managers concluded that he could drive home safely. The cause of the accident was obvious: the employee 's carelessness, which the employee admitted. The managers were ""reasonably able to exclude the possibility that drug or alcohol impairment"" may have caused the accident. As such, the demand that the employee submit to an alcohol and drug test was not justified."

"Come March 14, Bethlehem no longer will ask each job applicant up front about a criminal record. That information, however, will be divulged prior to hiring. By opting to wait, the city joins a national movement pushed by civil rights advocates to ""ban the box.""

Advocates argue that many applicants with criminal records are passed over without considering his or her qualifications for a job, making employment difficult for thousands of otherwise competent people." By eliminating the requirement that one disclose a criminal conviction on the initial application, we can now attract the broadest group of applicants for each vacant position."Bethlehem Mayor Robert Donchez said. "Once it has been determined that a candidate is qualified for the position and is a finalist, then a criminal background check will be conducted.""