| |  |
BC construction workers face drug tests | Category: | Editorials (SAFETY) | | Published Date: | 01/09/2008 | |
CommentsBy: Canadian Occupational Health & Safety News September 1, 2008
NEW WESTMINSTER, B.C. (Canadian OH&S News) -- Unionized construction workers and contractors in British Columbia will soon be subject to a mandatory drug and alcohol policy under a new, ground-breaking agreement.
Approximately 35,000 workers will fall under the policy, jointly negotiated by the Construction Labour Relations Association of BC (CLRA) and the Bargaining Council of British Columbia Building Trades Unions. Under the program, testing may be done on employees who are involved in workplace accidents or near-misses or when there is reasonable suspicion of impairment on the job, says Clyde Scollan, president of the CLRA, the association that speaks on behalf of unionized contractors in the province.
The policy includes testing for alcohol and nine drugs: marijuana, barbiturates, amphetamines, cocaine, methadone, opiates, propoxyphene, phenocyclidine (PCP) and benzodiazepine.
Workers may also be subject to 'pre-access testing,' Scollan says, meaning that clients or project owners may require a test before work is started on a new project. However, workers may opt out of the pre-access testing if they agree to "be subject to unannounced testing over the next three years," he says. "If your number doesn't come up over the next three years, you're required to test again to maintain your membership in that part of the program." The CLRA and bargaining council are currently working on implementing this portion of the policy, which is expected to be completed by November.
"We're quite pleased with the end result," Scollan says, noting the policy has been in the works for two years. "It's a positive step forward for both employers and workers in the BC construction industry because of our bottom line concern that everybody gets home safe and sound."
Mark Olsen, president of the bargaining council and business manager of the Construction & Specialized Workers' Union Local 1611, agrees.
"Construction work is dangerous enough without the added perils of having impaired workers on the job site," he says. "We opted for a non-invasive testing policy which is designed to measure possible current impairment on the job, not what you did last week."
Association would prefer pre-employment tests
Philip Hochstein, president of the Independent Contractors and Business Association in Burnaby, BC, calls the policy a "good first step," but says "to be really effective, the industry would have to institute pre-employment testing." However, the implication that safety is as much a priority to employees as employers is significant, Hochstein says.
While acknowledging that "it's not easy to get that balance between privacy rights and the rights of workers in terms of being on a safe work site," Scollan says that workers who fail the drug test will be required to take a follow-up saliva or blood test which can typically pinpoint drug use down to an approximate 24 to 48-hour period. Workers who test positive will not be allowed to return to work until a substance abuse expert is satisfied the employee can safely return, he adds. The worker must also agree to continue any required treatment or counselling and would be subject to random, follow-up testing for two years.
The policy comes in advance of some major industrial construction projects, Scollan notes, pointing to an upgrade of Rio Tinto Alcan's aluminum smelter in Kitimat. "That also provided the impetus to come up with a policy that included pre-access testing," he says, adding that the policy has been included as part of the working conditions on the project.
The issue of drug testing has been in the spotlight since a landmark decision by the Court of Appeal of Alberta late last year. On December 28, 2007, the high court overturned a lower court decision that found that John Chiasson, an employee of Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, was discriminated against after being fired when he failed a pre-employment drug test in 2002. "Extending human rights protections to situations resulting in placing the lives of others at risk flies in the face of logic," the decision says.
|
|
|
Back
|
Edit
|
| | |
16.2% 
60.5% 