imperial oil ltd v cep local 777

7/25/2019 Imperial Oil Ltd v CEP Local 777

1/56

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. C.E.P., Local 777, 66 C.L.A.S. 339

Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 1

Most Negative Treatment:Distinguished

Most Recent Distinguished:Chiasson v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Co.| 2006 ABQB 302, 2006 CarswellAlta 621,

[2006] A.W.L.D. 2274, 2006 C.L.L.C. 230-017, 59 Alta. L.R. (4th) 314, [2006] A.J. No. 583, 50 C.C.E.L. (3d) 6, 267 D.L.R.

(4th) 639, [2006] 8 W.W.R. 730, 399 A.R. 85, 56 C.H.R.R. D/470 | (Alta. Q.B., May 11, 2006)

66 C.L.A.S. 339Alberta Arbitration

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. C.E.P., Local 777

2001 CarswellAlta 1962, [2001] A.G.A.A. No. 102, 66 C.L.A.S. 339

Imperial Oil Limited and C.E.P. Local 777

Chahley Member, Neuman Member, Sims Chair

Heard: November 24-25, 1999

Heard: January 4, 2000Heard: April 13, 2000

Judgment: November 27, 2001

Docket: 2001-102

Counsel: R.B. White, Q.C., Donald J. Wilson, for Imperial Oil

Lyle Kanee, for C.E.P. Local 777

Subject: Constitutional; Labour; Employment

DISCIPLINARY OFFENCES --- Intoxicants Reporting under the influence

Grievor failed workplace drug test Grievor long-service employee Prior discipline record Grievor previouslysuspended for drug usage Grievor conditionally reinstated Grievor required to pass drug tests for two-year period

Employer had alcohol and drug policy Employer had reasonable cause to request drug test Grievor dishonest Grievor

breached alcohol and drug policy Grievor breached reinstatement terms Discharge not excessive Grievance denied.

(69 pp.)

(Dissent not included)

Table of Authorities

Cases considered:

B.F.C.S.D., Local 278C v. Brewers' Warehousing Co.(1954), 5 L.A.C. 1797(Ont. Arb.) considered

British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. B.C.G.E.U.(1999), 1999 CarswellBC 1907,

1999 CarswellBC 1908, (sub nom.British Columbia Government & Service Employees' Union v. Public Service

Employee Relations Commission)99 C.L.L.C. 230-028, [1999] 10 W.W.R. 1, (sub nom.British Columbia (Public

Service Employee Relations Commission) v. B.C.G.S.E.U.)176 D.L.R. (4th) 1, (sub nom.Public Service Employee

Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government & Service Employees' Union) 244 N.R. 145, 66

B.C.L.R. (3d) 253, (sub nom.Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government

& Service Employees' Union)127 B.C.A.C. 161, (sub nom.Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.)

v. British Columbia Government & Service Employees' Union)207 W.A.C. 161, 46 C.C.E.L. (2d) 206, 35 C.H.R.R.
http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1954040876&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6566&serNum=2009255513&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)


2/56



D/257, (sub nom.British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. B.C.G.S.E.U.)68 C.R.R.

(2d) 1, (sub nom.British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU)[1999] 3 S.C.R.

3, 7 B.H.R.C. 437(S.C.C.) followed

British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)(1999), [1999]

3 S.C.R. 868, 1999 CarswellBC 2730, 1999 CarswellBC 2731, [2000] 1 W.W.R. 565, 47 M.V.R. (3d) 167, 249 N.R.

45, 70 B.C.L.R. (3d) 215, 181 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 36 C.H.R.R. D/129, 131 B.C.A.C. 280, 214 W.A.C. 280(S.C.C.)

referred to

C.E.P., Local 777 v. Imperial Oil Ltd.(May 27, 2000), ChristianMember (Alta. Arb.) considered

C.H. Heist Ltd. v. E.C.W.U., Local 848(1991), 20 L.A.C. (4th) 112(Ont. Arb.) referred to

Canadian Civil Liberties Assn. v. Toronto Dominion Bank(1998), (sub nom.Toronto Dominion Bank v. Canadian

Human Rights Commission) 98 C.L.L.C. 230-030, (sub nom. Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Toronto

Dominion Bank)229 N.R. 135, 163 D.L.R. (4th) 193, 1998 CarswellNat 1352, 38 C.C.E.L. (2d) 8, (sub nom.Canada

(Human Rights Commission) v. Toronto Dominion Bank)32 C.H.R.R. D/261, (sub nom.Canada (Human Rights

Commission) v. Toronto Dominion Bank) [1998] 4 F.C. 205, (sub nom.Canadian Human Rights Commission v.

Toronto-Dominion Bank)154 F.T.R. 101 (note), 1998 CarswellNat 2708(Fed. C.A.) considered

Canadian National Railway v. B.M.W.E. (1998), 75 L.A.C. (4th) 300, 1998 CarswellNat 2889 (Can. Arb.)

considered

Canadian National Railway v. U.T.U.(1989), 6 L.A.C. (4th) 381(Can. Arb.) considered

Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd.(1995), 95 C.L.L.C. 230-022, (sub nom.Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd. (No. 6))23 C.H.R.R.

D/196, 24 C.C.E.L. (2d) 87, 1995 CarswellOnt 1638(Ont. Bd. of Inquiry) referred to

Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd.(1996), 24 C.C.E.L. (2d) 122, (sub nom.Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd. (No. 8))27 C.H.R.R.D/210, 1996 CarswellOnt 4403, [1996] L.V.I. 2810-1(Ont. Bd. of Inquiry) referred to

Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd.(1998), 30 C.H.R.R. D/433, 98 C.L.L.C. 230-012, 1998 CarswellOnt 510, 108 O.A.C. 81,

35 C.C.E.L. (2d) 56, [1998] L.V.I. 2925-1(Ont. Div. Ct.) referred to

Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd.(1998), 1998 CarswellOnt 1955(Ont. C.A.) considered

Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd.(2000), 2000 CarswellOnt 2525, 2 C.C.E.L. (3d) 19, 189 D.L.R. (4th) 14, 50 O.R. (3d)

18, 2000 C.L.L.C. 230-037, 137 O.A.C. 15, (sub nom.Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Entrop)37 C.H.R.R. D/481(Ont. C.A.)

considered

Esso Petroleum Canada v. C.E.P., Local 614(1994), 56 L.A.C. (4th) 440(B.C. Arb.) considered

Fantom Technologies Inc. v. U.S.W.A., Local 6444(1998), 1998 CarswellOnt 6108, 70 L.A.C. (4th) 241(Ont. Arb.)

distinguished

Hardie v. Trans-Canada Resources Ltd.(1976), 71 D.L.R. (3d) 668, 2 A.R. 289, 1976 CarswellAlta 221(Alta. C.A.)

considered
http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1976148897&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1976148897&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998462107&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1994410920&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1994410920&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000548423&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000548423&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000548423&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000548423&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000548423&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000548423&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000548423&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000548423&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000548423&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998457475&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998457475&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998457475&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998457475&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998453403&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998453403&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998453403&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1996444120&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1996444120&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1995399502&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1995399502&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1995399502&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1995399502&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1995399502&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1995399502&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1989321954&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1989321954&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1989321954&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1989321954&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998470684&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1991345733&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1991345733&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000679525&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999498361&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999498361&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999498361&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1976148897&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998462107&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1994410920&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000548423&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000548423&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998457475&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998453403&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998453403&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1996444120&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1996444120&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1995399502&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1995399502&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1989321954&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998470684&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998461191&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1991345733&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000679525&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999498361&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999498361&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999498361&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)


3/56



I.U.O.E., Local 793 v. Sarnia Cranes Ltd. (1999), [1999] L.V.I. 3021-2, 1999 CarswellOnt 1951, [1999] L.V.I.

3034-1, [1999] O.L.R.B. Rep. 479, (sub nom. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Sarnia

Cranes Ltd.)99 C.L.L.C. 220-072(Ont. L.R.B.) considered

Labatt Ontario Breweries (Toronto Brewery) v. Brewery, General & Professional Workers Union, Local 304(1994),

42 L.A.C. (4th) 151, 1994 CarswellOnt 1281(Ont. Arb.) referred to

Lumber & Sawmill Workers' Union, Local 2537 v. KVP Co.(1965), 16 L.A.C. 73(Ont. Arb.) referred to

Metropol Security v. U.S.W.A., Local 5296 (1998), 69 L.A.C. (4th) 399, 1998 CarswellOnt 6198(Ont. Arb.)

referred to

N.A.P.E. v. Newfoundland(1996), (sub nom.N.A.P.E. v. Newfoundland (Green Bay Health Care Centre))134 D.L.R.

(4th) 1, 196 N.R. 212, 39 Admin. L.R. (2d) 1, 140 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 63, 438 A.P.R. 63, 96 C.L.L.C. 230-023, (sub

nom.N.A.P.E. v. Newfoundland (Green Bay Health Care Centre)) [1996] 2 S.C.R. 3, 28 C.H.R.R. D/224, 1996

CarswellNfld 133, 1996 CarswellNfld 133F, [1996] L.V.I. 2757-1(S.C.C.) referred to

Ontario Store Fixtures v. C.J.A., Local 1072(1993), 35 L.A.C. (4th) 187, 1993 CarswellOnt 1256(Ont. Arb.) considered

Procor Sulphur Services v. C.E.P., Local 57(1998), 1998 CarswellAlta 1334, [1999] L.V.I. 2994-2, 79 L.A.C. (4th)

341(Alta. Arb.) referred to

Provincial-American Truck Transporters v. Teamsters Union, Local 880(1991), 18 L.A.C. (4th) 412(Ont. Arb.)

considered

Qubec (Commission des droits de la personne & des droits de la jeunesse) c. Montral (Ville) (2000), 2000

CarswellQue 649, 2000 CarswellQue 650, 2000 SCC 27, (sub nom.Ville de Montral v. Mercier)2000 C.L.L.C.

230-020, (sub nom.Qubec (Commission des droits de la personne & des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montreal (City))185 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 50 C.C.E.L. (2d) 247, [2000] L.V.I. 3115-1, (sub nom.Qubec (Commission des droits de la

personne & des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montral (Ville))253 N.R. 107, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 665, (sub nom.Quebec

(Commission des droits de la personne & des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montral (City))74 C.R.R. (2d) 80, 37 C.H.R.R.

D/271(S.C.C.) referred to

Toronto District School Board v. C.U.P.E. (1999), 79 L.A.C. (4th) 365, 1999 CarswellOnt 3230 (Ont. Arb.)

distinguished

Trimac Transportation Services - Bulk Systems v. T.C.U.(1999), [2000] L.V.I. 3090-2, 1999 CarswellNat 2995, 88

L.A.C. (4th) 237(Can. Arb.) considered

Statutes considered:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act

1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11

Generally referred to

Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-11.7

http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999502161&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999502161&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999492940&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000543437&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000543437&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000543437&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000543437&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000543437&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000543437&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000543437&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1991349792&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998471518&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998471518&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1993386174&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1996449991&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1996449991&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1996449991&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1996449991&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998460479&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1965069024&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1994393983&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1994393983&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999489616&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999489616&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999489616&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)


4/56



s. 7 referred to

s. 7(1) referred to

s. 7(1)(a) referred to

s. 7(3) referred to

s. 11.1 [en. 1985, c. 33, s. 5] referred to

s. 38(1)(i) "physical disability" referred to

Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19


Labour Relations Code, S.A. 1988, c. L-1.2

s. 140(2) referred to

Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. O-2s. 2(1) referred to

Decision of the Board:

1 Mr. Dave Parsons grieves his dismissal from Imperial Oil Ltd. through his Union Local 777 of the Chemical Energy and

Paperworkers Union. Mr. Parsons worked as a blender at Imperial's Strathcona Refinery in Edmonton, Alberta. At the point of

his dismissal he had been with the Employer for about 18 years.

2 He was dismissed following a positive result to a random drug test for cannabis. He was subjected to the test because

of a prior incident that occurred on April 17, 1997. At the time, a tank Mr. Parsons was tending overflowed. Following an

investigation he was asked to take an alcohol and drug test, which showed positive for Cannibis, recorded at 369 nanograms/

ml. Mr. Parsons only returned to work once further tests showed negative for drugs. On May 2 nd and March 5 th , Mr. Parsons

received disciplineletters for this earlier incident. Since much of this case turns on one of these letters, we set it out in full.

As you are aware, you tested positive on a post incident drug test on April 17, 1997. We have satisfied ourselves that

the test protocol integrity was upheld in this case. A condition of employment is compliance with the corporate alcohol

and drug policy. The policy requires that employees be drug free while at work. The positive test demonstrated that you

contravened that work rule on April 17, 1997. Because this is your first violation under the alcohol and drug policy, we

have determined that the appropriate disciplineis placement of this letter on your file for a period of two years. If any

violation of the alcohol and drug policy occurs during this two year period, you will be subject to further disciplineup to

and including immediate terminationwithout notice or pay in lieu of notice.

A condition for your return to work is that you pass an alcohol and drug test which demonstrates that you meet therequirements of the alcohol and drug policy. Please contact the site A & D administrator, John Fukushima (449-8312), to

arrange for the test. Pending our receiving confirmation of a negative test result, you are considered to be unfit for work,

and as such, commencing today, May 5, 1997, you will not be paid. Upon confirmation of a negative test you may return

to work and your pay will be reinstated effective the day the negative test was taken.

An ongoing requirement upon your return to work will be your demonstration of compliance with the alcohol and drug

policy as measured through periodic unannounced alcohol and drug tests for a period of two years at a frequency of at

least once per quarter.


5/56



I strongly recommend that you be assessed, and if necessary treated, for substanceabuse. Should the assessment indicate

that you have a substanceabuseproblem, I want to assure you that we will offer you all the support we can so that you

can overcome this problem.

You must recognize that this is a serious matter and I trust you will govern yourself accordingly.

3 The random tests called for by this letter took place. They were all negative until a test administered a year and a half

later on November 2, 1998, which showed a positive result, reported at 22 nanograms/ml. Once Imperial Oil Ltd. learned of

this positive result, and heard Mr. Parson's explanation, it considered its position and then dismissed him for the reasons set

out in its terminationletter (Exhibit 3):

In accordance with our Alcohol and Drug Policy (the "Policy") and the terms of the May 2, 1997 "A & D Post Incident

"Positive" follow up" letter addressed to you, you submitted to an unannounced test for alcohol and drugs on Monday,

November 2, 1998.

I was advised that your test result was positive. As you know the presence in the body of illicit drugs while on company

business or premises constitutes a violation of section (G)(1)(b) of the Policy.

Section (I)(5) of the Policy provides that a positive test result is grounds for disciplinary action. This is your second

violation of the Policy. You were informed, in the above mentioned letter, that a subsequent violation would result in

further disciplineup to and including immediate terminationwithout notice or pay in lieu of notice.

Accordingly, your employment is terminated immediately for just cause.

4 It is Mr. Parsons' terminationdue to this positive random test result that is the subject of this grievance, not the May 2 nd ,

1997 disciplineimposed due to the April 17, 1997 incident.

The Grievance

5 The collective agreement requires just cause for discipline:

3.02 Disciplinary Action

(a) The company has the right to discipline, suspend or terminate the employment of any employee for just cause.

6 The grievance dated November 13 th alleges a violation of Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.03 of the agreement and seeks

"reinstatement of the grievor with full back pay and no loss of seniority or benefits. Grievor is to be made whole." It describes

the circumstances giving rise to the grievance as follows:

Dave Parsons (the "Grievor") was terminated from employment on November 13, 1998 unjustly. The Employer (Imperial

Oil) has justified his terminationon the basis of a violation of the Company's Alcohol & Drug Policy. The Alcohol &

Drug Policy, including the guidelines is unlawful, discriminatory and unreasonable. The application of the Alcohol & Drug

Policy in this case and the terminationof the grievor in all of the circumstances is unjust, discriminatory and unreasonable.

7 The Union expanded somewhat on these grounds at the next step of the grievance procedure:

Grievor's Position

The clauses of the Collective Agreement being grieved are:

3.01 but more specifically 3.01(c) in that the A & D policy is an unjust rule

3.02(a) on the basis that the disciplinewas not for just cause.


6/56



3.02(b) since the company did not provide the union executive with copies of the disciplineletter of November 13,

1998, nor did it provide copies of the disciplineletters of May 2, 1997, when Dave Parsons was initially subjected to

the A & D Policy. The union believes it is the Company's responsibility to provide the union with disciplineletters

and not the responsibility of the employee.

4.03 re general discrimination and based on a violation of the employee's human rights.

The circumstances and facts pertaining to the grievance, as submitted by the union, claim that the A & D Policy is unlawful,

discriminatory and unjust. Also that the terminationunder the policy is unjust, discriminatory and unreasonable. The A

& D Policy is considered to be a violation of the employee's human rights and the Company has no right to test.

Mr. Parsons' job

8 Imperial Oil operates a refinery in Edmonton. Adjacent to that facility it runs the Strathcona Specialty Products Plant

(SSPP), which blends, packages and distributes various lubricants. Administratively, the SSPP reports to the Toronto Specialty

Products Group, and is not linked to the refinery. The area includes a large number of storage and blending tanks, connected

by pipes. Products are transferred in measured amounts through these pipes into blending tanks, then transferred once blended

for packaging or further storage.

9 Mr. Parsons worked as a "qualified number one blender." As such, he rotated shifts between four task groups; tank car

loading and off loading, loading tank cars, batch blending and in-line blending using a computerized blender. On occasion, Mr.

Parsons would fill-in as a senior blender working in the control room doing the hands-on directing. Mr. Parsons' job is more

fully described in the blender operator-training manual (Exhibit 2). It is not classified as a safety sensitive position.

Agreed Statement of Facts

10 The parties provided the following agreed statement of facts, annotated to many of the important exhibits. That agreement

provides:

1. The grievor Dave Parsons ("Parsons") commenced employment with Imperial Oil Limited ("Imperial Oil") on or about

November 16, 1981. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked as Exhibit "1", is the personal data sheet

of Parsons.

2. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked asExhibit "2"is a copy of the training manual for a Blending

Operator.

3. Parsons was subsequently continuously in the employ of Imperial Oil until his termination, on November 13, 1998.

Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked asExhibit "3"is the terminationletter.

4. At the time of his termination, Parsons worked in the SSPP Business Unit at the Strathcona Refinery and was not a

safety-sensitive employee under the Imperial Oil Alcohol and Drug Policy (the "Policy").

5. On March 22, 1996 Parsons was reprimanded for the inappropriate use of the Corporate VISA credit card, specifically

for personal use. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked asExhibit "4"is a memorandum regarding this

incident.

6. The Policy was announced to employees in October 1991 and became effective on January 1, 1992. Appended to this

agreed Statement of Facts and marked asExhibit "5"is a copy of the Policy.

7. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked asExhibit "6"are the Imperial Oil A&D Guidelines.

8. A term of the Policy was that any employee of Imperial Oil was subject to disciplinary action up to and including

terminationof employment where he or she was found to have violated the Policy by inter alia:


7/56



(a) use of illicit drugs while on company business or premises;

(b) presence in the body of illicit drugs while on company business or premises; and

(c) being unfit for scheduled work due to the use or after-effects of illicit drugs.

9. Pursuant to a Certificate issued by the Alberta Labour Relations Board on July 3, 1995, the Communications, Energy

and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local Number 777 (CEP, Local 777) was certified as the exclusive bargaining agentfor a unit of employees of Imperial Oil at the Strathcona Refinery described as "all employees of the Strathcona Refinery

except office, clerical, laboratory and controllers" (the "Strathcona Refinery Bargaining Unit"). Appended to this agreed

Statement of Facts and marked asExhibit "7"is a copy of this Certificate.

10. CEP, Local 777 subsequently signed a collective agreement with Imperial Oil (the "Collective Agreement"). The

parties agreed that the Collective Agreement was to be in force from September 11, 1996 to January 31, 1999. Appended

to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked asExhibit "8"is a copy of the Collective Agreement.

11. Prior to the expiration of the Collective Agreement, CEP 777 and Imperial Oil executed an updated Collective

Agreement ("Updated Collective Agreement"). The Updated Collective Agreement was to be in force from July 8, 1998

to January 31, 2001. The Articles in issue in this grievance specifically, Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.03 do not differ between

the Collective Agreement and the Updated Collective Agreement. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked

asExhibit "9"is a copy of the Updated Collective Agreement.

12. On April 17, 1997 there was an incident at SSPP where Tank 1036 overflowed (the "Incident"). Appended to this

agreed Statement of Facts and marked asExhibit "10"is a summary of the Incident.

13. As part of the follow up to the Incident, Parsons was requested to take an A&D test. The collection form for this test

is attached asExhibit "11".

14. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked as Exhibit "12"is the documentation of the basis for post

Incident alcohol and drug test.

15. On April 21, 1997 Ron Gurak ("Gurak") met with Parsons to discuss the Incident. Also present at the meeting were

Dave Ramsay, Union Steward ("Ramsay") and Ken McMullan. Parsons was held out of service with pay until the A&D

investigation was complete.

16. The drug-screening portion of Parsons' A&D test was reported to Imperial Oil as "positive". Appended to this agreed

Statement of Facts and marked asExhibit "13"is the confirmation of a positive result for Cannabinoids.

17. The level of test of the April 17, 1997 specimen was reportedly 369 ng/ml.

18. Following the investigation and positive results of Parsons' drug test, Parsons was to held out of service without pay

until he was able to test negative for drugs. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked as Exhibit "14"is a

letter of disciplinefollowing the positive results of the drug test and signed by Parsons on May 5, 1997.

19. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked as Exhibit "15"is a letter of disciplinewith respect to the

April 17, 1997 incident.

20. A copy of the letter of disciplinedated May 2, 1997 (Exhibit 15) and signed by Parsons on May 5, 1997, was given

to the Union by Ken McMullan with the consent of Parsons. The letter was given to the Union on May 13, 1997.

21. Parsons attempted to reinstate on May 12, 1997 and tested positive for drugs. Appended to this agreed Statement of

Facts and marked asExhibit "16"is the confirmation of a positive result for Cannabinoids.


8/56



22. The level of the test of the May 12, 1997 specimen was reportedly 17 ng/ml.

23. On May 23, 1997, Parsons was able to reinstate after receiving a negative result on his drug screen. Appended to this

agreed Statement of Facts and marked asExhibit "17"are the consent forms relating to this test.

24. On June 9, 1997, Parsons met with the Imperial Oil A&D Site Administrator, John Fukushima ("Fukushima") to

review Parsons' obligations under the Imperial Oil A&D Policy and requirements of reinstatement. Appended to this agreed

Statement of Facts and marked as Exhibits "18" and "19"are a handwritten memo signed by Parsons and a memo by

Fukushima, respectively.

25. Pursuant to the terms of reinstatement, Parsons underwent unannounced quarterly tests. Imperial Oil's record of the

dates and results of the tests were as follows:

July 4, 1997 negative result

October 7, 1997 negative result

November 27, 1997 negative result

January 22, 1998 negative result

May 12, 1998 negative result

November 2, 1998 positive result

27. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked as Exhibit "20"are the consent forms for the November 2,

1998 test.

28. The level of the test of the November 2, 1998 specimen was reportedly 22ng/ml.

29. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked as Exhibit "21"are the statement and of Tammy Pich, RN,

with respect to the November 2, 1998 collection.

30. On November 9, 1998 Imperial Oil was notified that Parsons had tested positive for drugs. Appended to this agreed

Statement of Facts and marked as Exhibit "22"is the notification of a result for Cannabinoids, regarding the November

2, 1998 test.

31. Parsons discussed the results of the drug test with Brian Fairley ("Fairley") and was advised that he be held out of

service pending the results of the investigation. An investigation was completed by Fairley and documented in the file by

a memorandum. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked asExhibit "23"is the memorandum prepared by

Fairley summarizing the investigation and history of Parsons.

32. On November 13, 1998 a meeting was held between Fairley, Parsons, Ramsay and Ken Moor. The investigation details

were reviewed with Parsons. Parsons stated that he had nothing to add which could impact the investigation. Parsons was

handed a copy of the terminationletter (Exhibit "3") letter was read aloud by Fairley. Appended to this agreed Statement

of Facts and marked asExhibit "24"is a memorandum to file by Fairley summarizing the events of November 13, 1998.

33. On or about November 17, 1998 CEP, Local 777 filed a grievance regarding Parsons' termination("the Grievance"),

on the basis that Parsons had been wrongly dismissed from his employment with Imperial Oil pursuant to the Policy, which

CEP Local 777 maintained was an unlawful, discriminatory and unreasonable. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts

and marked asExhibit "25"is a copy of the Grievance form.


9/56



34. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked asExhibit "26"is a copy of a summary of a Step 2 Grievance

meeting.

35. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked as Exhibit "27"is a copy of Imperial Oil's response to the

Grievance.

36. The Grievance was duly processed under the procedure set out in the Collective Agreement governing the employment

relationship between Parsons and Imperial Oil.

37. Appended to this agreed Statement of Facts and marked as Exhibits "28", "29" and "30"are the files of Dr. Barry

Kurtzer with respect to the April 17, 1997, May 12, 1997 and November 2, 1998 collections respectively.

38. On or about October 10, 1996 CEP Local 777 served notice upon Imperial Oil that it was initiating a policy grievance

(the "Policy Grievance") under the relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement, on the basis that the Policy exceeded

management rights and was discriminatory, unlawful and a violation of the privacy rights of members of the Strathcona

Refinery Bargaining Unit. At that time CEP Local 777 requested that Imperial Oil cease and desist from implementing

the Policy at the Strathcona Refinery. A copy of the Policy Grievance is appended to this Statement of Facts and marked

asExhibit "31".

The Alcohol and Drug AbusePolicy

11 Much of the argument in this case relates to the validity and application of Imperial Oil's Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Policy. For now, we set out the succinct summary of the policy and its origin given by the Ontario Court of Appeal in previous

litigation involving this same policy.

Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd., [1998] O.J. No. 1927(Ont. C.A.); (2000), 189 D.L.R. (4th) 14(Ont. C.A.)

II. The Alcohol and Drug Policy

5 Following a number of incidents, such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, in which alcohol and drugs were thought

to be contributing factors, Imperial Oil became concerned that substanceabusethreatened the safety of its employees, the

public and the environment. It decided to implement a comprehensive alcohol and drug policy at its two Ontario refineries.

In developing the Policy, Imperial Oil consulted widely with its employees and with experts in alcohol and drug addiction

and occupational health and safety. The stated objective of the Policy was "to minimize the risk of impaired performance

due to substanceabuse". The Policy was announced to the employees on October 19, 1991, and implemented on January

1, 1992.

6 The Policy principally targeted employees in safety-sensitive positions, about ten percent of Imperial Oil's workforce.

Safety-sensitive positions "have a key and direct role in an operation where impaired performance could result in a

catastrophic incident affecting the health or safety of employees, sales associates, contractors, customers, the public or the

environment"; and "have no direct or very limited supervision available to provide frequent operational checks".

7 Under the Policy, as amended in February 1992, the following key work rules applied to employees in safety-sensitivepositions:

No presence in the body of illicit drugs or their metabolites, nor a blood-alcohol concentration exceeding .04 percent

(.04 grams per 100 millilitres) while at work.

Unannounced random alcohol and drug testing, alcohol testing by breathalyzer and drug testing by urinalysis.

On a positive test or other Policy violation, automatic dismissal.
http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000548423&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998457475&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)


10/56



To remain in or qualify for a safety-sensitive position, completion of a certification process, including a medical

examination, a negative test for alcohol and drugs, and a signed acknowledgement of compliance with the Policy.

Mandatory disclosure to management of a current or past "substanceabuseproblem".

On disclosure of a substance-abuseproblem, reassignment to a non-safety-sensitive position.

Reinstatement to a safety-sensitive position only on completing a company approved two-year rehabilitationprogram followed by five years of abstinence, and on signing an undertaking to abide by specified post-reinstatement

controls.

8 Although the Policy mainly focused on employees in safety-sensitive positions, it also provided for mandatoryalcohol

and drug testing for all job applicants and all employees in the following circumstances:

Pre-employment testing for specified drugs for all job applicants, as a condition of employment.

Testing for alcohol and specified drugs for all employees:

after a significant work accident, incident or near miss ("post-incident")

where reasonable cause existed to suspect alcohol or drug use ("for cause")

On a positive test, progressive disciplineup to and including dismissal could be imposed.

12 The policy is not referred to in the collective agreement. It was instituted well before the Union attained certification at

the Strathcona Plant. The policy itself has been the subject of much litigation since its introduction in 1992, involving Imperial

Oil directly and also some of its contractors. This is because Imperial has required contractors to implement similar policies

as a condition of doing business with the corporation.

13 Two decisions are worth noting at the outset. The first, arising from this location, is:

C.E.P., Local 777 v. Imperial Oil Ltd.(May 27, 2000), Christian Member (Alta. Arb.) (Gabriel) "The Gabriel Decision

"

14 The second is the last of a series of decisions involving Mr. Martin Entrop. The most significant is the ruling of the

Ontario Court of Appeal quoted above "The Entrop decision." That decision arose from a judicial review motion before the

Ontario Divisional Court.

Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd.(Ont. Div. Ct.).

15 That motion, in turn, arose from a series of interim decisions of an Ontario Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry.

In particular, those include:

Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd.(1995), 24 C.C.E.L. (2d) 87(Ont. Bd. of Inquiry) (Interim Decision #6).

Entrop v. Imperial Oil Ltd.(1996), 24 C.C.E.L. (2d) 122(Ont. Bd. of Inquiry) (Interim Decision #8).

The Gabriel Decision

16 The Gabriel Decision, argued before but issued after our hearings, dealt with the policy but in a somewhat different context.

As we will need to refer to the Gabriel award several times during the course of this decision we set out its basic facts now.
http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1996444120&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1949009387&pubNum=0001651&originatingDoc=If348a5d940683a85e0440021280d79ee&refType=CA&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998453403&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000679525&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1949009387&pubNum=0001651&originatingDoc=If348a5d940683a85e0440021280d79ee&refType=CA&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1996444120&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1947008556&pubNum=0001651&originatingDoc=If348a5d940683a85e0440021280d79ee&refType=CA&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1995399502&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998453403&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=2000679525&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)


11/56



17 Mr. Gabriel worked in the refinery in a safety sensitive position. Random drug and alcohol testing was a requirement

under the policy and Mr. Gabriel signed up for his position acknowledging that to be the case. One day he came to work and

was asked to take a random breathalyzer test. He registered .051% and .055% on the two tests administered, both of which

exceeded the allowable blood alcohol limit of .04%. He was terminated under the policy since employees are required to limit

consumption of alcohol before working hours so as to have no alcohol in their blood while they are at work.

18 The Union grieved the terminationand argued that the policy permitting random breathalyzer testing contravenedthe collective agreement, exceeded management's rights, was unreasonable, unlawful, discriminatory and a violation of an

employee's privacy rights. Mr. Gabriel was terminated solely for breaching the policy, not for any prior incident. Like Mr.

Parsons, Mr. Gabriel did not take the stand to testify on his own behalf.

19 The arbitration board analyzed the Union's arguments in great detail and in the end result dismissed the grievance and

upheld the dismissal. Some of the arguments before us were dealt with in the Gabriel award. While we are not bound by that

panel's finding, we recognize the appropriate respect to be paid to the findings of an earlier board on the same issue under the

same collective agreement. As then arbitrator, later Chief Justice Laskin said as early as 1954:

It is not good policy for one Board of Arbitration to refuse to follow the award of another Board in a similar dispute

between the same parties arising out of the same Agreement where the dispute involves the interpretation of the Agreement.

Nonetheless, if the second Board has the clear conviction that the first award is wrong, it is its duty to determine the casebefore it on principles that it believes are applicable.

B.F.C.S.D., Local 278C v. Brewers' Warehousing Co.(1954), 5 L.A.C. 1797(Ont. Arb.), at 1798 (Laskin)

The Entrop Decision

20 Mr. Entrop was a recovered alcoholic. He had been employed with Imperial Oil at its Sarnia refinery in a safety sensitive

position. When Imperial Oil adopted its policy, Mr. Entrop complied with its disclosure provisions. As a result of his disclosure,

Imperial transferred him to a non-safety sensitive position, which, although it attracted the same pay, was less desirable. Mr.

Entrop complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission that this reassignment was a discriminatory act based upon a

handicap contrary to the Human Rights Code. Handicap, he argued, encompassed alcoholism.

21 The complaint went before a one-person Board of Inquiry chaired by Professor Constance Backhouse. At the urging of

the Human Rights Commission, Prof. Backhouse expanded the inquiry scope to include the drug abuseas well as the alcohol

related parts of Imperial's policy. In a series of rulings, she found alcoholism to be a handicap, and the policies to be overbroad

and discriminatory. She also found that Imperial Oil's conduct towards Mr. Entrop merited an award of damages on account of

mental anguish as well as certain reprisals. Imperial Oil appealed these several rulings, resulting in the decision of the Ontario

Court of Appeal referred to above.

22 Following Mr. Entrop's complaint, and an amendment to the policy to allow for reinstatement, Imperial agreed to reinstate

him to his former safety sensitive position. It did so following a series of tests that confirmed that his alcohol dependency was

in remission and after he undertook to submit to unannounced alcohol tests and to comply with the policy.

23 At paragraph 34 of its decision, the Court of Appeal listed the Board of Inquiry's five general conclusions::

1. The Policy's requirement that employees in safety-sensitive positions disclose any current or past " substanceabuse

problem" contravenes the Code because the definition of "substanceabuseproblem" is too broad and is unlimited in

duration.

2. The Policy provisions that prescribe a minimum of seven years between reassignment following disclosure of a

substanceabuseproblem and potential reinstatement breach the Code because this length of time is not necessary in all

cases.
http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1954040876&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1954040876&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)


12/56



3. The mandatory conditions of reinstatement breach the Code because they are more than necessary in some cases.

4. The Policy provisions for pre-employment and random drug testing breach the Code because Imperial Oil failed to prove

that a positive drug test shows impairment. However, drug testing "for cause", "post-incident", on "certification for safety-

sensitive positions" and "post-reinstatement" may be permissible, but only if Imperial Oil establishes that this "testing is

necessary as one facet of a larger process of assessment of drug abuse." [page 29]

5. The Policy provisions for random alcohol testing breach the Code because Imperial Oil failed to establish that this

testing is reasonably necessary to deter alcohol impairment on the job. Alcohol testing for "certification" for safety-

sensitive positions and "post-reinstatement" may be permissible but again only if Imperial Oil establishes that this testing

"is necessary as one facet of a large process of assessment of alcohol abuse."

24 Much of the Board of Inquiry analysis inEntrop, and subsequently the Divisional Court's analysis, was carried out of

the assumption that the general law and specifically the Ontario Human Rights Code distinguished between direct and adverse

affect discrimination. By the time the Ontario Court of Appeal decided the matter, the Supreme Court of Canada had replaced

this distinction with the unified three-part test articulated in:

British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. B.C.G.E.U.(1999), 176 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.)

("theMeiorincase"), and

British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)(1999), 181 D.L.R.

(4th) 385(S.C.C.)

25 For the purposes of this case, theMeiorinapproach is now the law, and the pre-Meiorin analysis in theEntropdecisions

prior to the Court of Appeal have been overtaken.

26 On the issues of concern to this Board, the Ontario Court of Appeal held, in summary:

1. That the Backhouse Inquiry "had no jurisdiction to inquire into all aspects of drug testing." However, since the Board

of Inquiry and the Divisional Court had addressed whether the drug testing provisions of the policy violated the Code "...

practically I see no alternative but to do so as well."

2. That "on a generous view" Imperial Oil's requiring Mr. Entrop to sign an undertaking to abide by the Drug and Alcohol

abusepolicy "entitled the Board of Inquiry to assert jurisdiction over alcohol testing but not drug testing." (see paragraph

53). However, this wasbecause the undertaking and the requirement that Mr. Entrop, a reformed alcoholic, agree to random

testing

... were rooted in Imperial Oil's concern that Entrop might again become an alcoholic. Viewed expansively, therefore,

the undertaking gave the Board jurisdiction to inquire into all aspects of alcohol testing under the Policy. (para. 55)

However, since Mr. Entrop never had a drug abuseproblem, the Board could not use this rationale to expand its inquiry

into the drug abusearea. The significance of this point for our ruling lies in the proposition that the Board of Inquiry's

jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the policy was dependent upon Mr. Entrop's assertion, in his complaint, thathe fell within the class of persons against whom it was arguedthe policy was discriminatory. The Court also found it

"logically flawed" to assess jurisdiction looking back from ones remedial jurisdiction. It said at paragraphs 57:

The Board cannot work backwards from its remedial powers to enlarge the subject matter of the complaint. In other

words the Board's remedial powers cannot confer jurisdiction over a matter if the Board had no jurisdiction over it

at the outset. The range of remedies available to the Board, though broad enough to include future practices, must

be linked to the subject matter of the complaint.

3. Handicap includes a past or perceived handicap.
http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998457475&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999498361&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998457475&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998457475&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999498361&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999498361&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1999291821&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998457475&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)


13/56



89 The Board found, on uncontradicted expert evidence, that drug abuseand alcohol abuse- together substance

abuse- are each a handicap. Each is "an illness or disease creating physical disability or mental impairment and

interfering with physical, psychological and social functioning." Drug dependence and alcohol dependence, also

separately found by the Board to be handicaps, are severe forms of substanceabuse. Therefore, on the findings of

the Board, which are not disputed on this appeal, substanceabusers are handicapped and entitled to the protection

of the Code.

4. Persons who test positive on a random alcohol or drug test may be casual users not substanceabusers, and may, therefore,

not actually be handicapped (see paragraph 90). However, Imperial's policy and the related guidelines treat social drinkers

and casual drug users as if they were substanceabusers. Imperial Oil also applies sanctions to any person testing positive

"... on the assumption that the person is likely to be impaired at work currently or in the future and thus not fit for duty. This

creates an adverse effect upon those who test positive and means the policies areprima faciediscriminatory (see para. 92).

5. Imperial Oil adopted the policies for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job (Meiorinstep 1 - see

para. 94). Imperial Oil adopted its testing provision in a honest and good faith belief that they were necessary to accomplish

its purposes. (Meiorinstep 2 - see para. 95).

27 Later in these reasons we will review the Court's comments on the third step in itsMeiorinanalysis. While Entrop

concluded the Board had no jurisdiction to inquire into the drug testing provisions of the policy (and as a consequence setaside all aspects of the Board of Inquiry's decision on that point) its analysis is still significant and will be referred to in our

subsequent review.

Grounds for Termination

28 The Employer accepts that it has the onus of proving just cause for terminationon the basis of the grounds set out in

the letter of termination. However, the parties take different approaches to these grounds. The Union attempts to characterize

the terminationas being solely or at least effectively for the November 2, 1998 test as a breach of Imperial Oil's Alcohol and

Drug AbusePolicy. The Employer emphasizes the cumulative affect of Mr. Parson's record, his alleged deceit in explaining the

presence of cannabinoids in his system, the incident of April 17, 1997, his "breaking faith" with the agreement under which he

resumed work following that incident as well as two breaches of the Alcohol and Drug AbusePolicy. In the Union's submission,

the Employer has argued the case as if it was imposing disciplinefor the April 17, 1997 incident rather than for the November

2, 1998 test failure.

29 The Union attacks the validity and enforceability of the policy itself, downplaying the fact that the reason Mr. Parsons

was subjected to the random testing aspect of the policy was because of the conditions attached to his continued employment

following the earlier incident. The Employer, in turn, downplays the decisions that challenge the validity and efficacy of certain

aspects of its policy.

30 The cases that have addressed this and similar policies draw a distinction between a policy requiring all employees to

submit to random testing and a policy that allows a test following a significant event ("post-event" and "reasonable cause"

testing).

31 In this case, the parties' arguments often appear at cross-purposes. The Employer says this is a case of "post-incident

testing and appropriate follow-up." The Union says it is a case of random testing which has been held to be both unreasonable

and discriminatory. In fact what we have is a hybrid situation. It is a random testing regime, based on the policy's terms and

procedures, but directed at a specific individual. This policy has not been made applicable to Mr. Parson's contemporaries - those

similarly situated in non-safety sensitive positions. Instead it has been made applicable to him alone as a condition attached to

his continued employment following the original, failed, post-incident test of April 17, 1997.
http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1998457475&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)


14/56



32 The legal analysis varies depending on whether one approaches the case as a breach of a condition arising from the 1997

disciplineand reinstatement letter, or (in contrast) as a breach of the Alcohol and Drug Abusepolicy alone. The termination

letter sets out the grounds.

In accordance with our Alcohol and Drug Policy (the "Policy") and the terms of the May 2, 1997 "A & D Post Incident

"Positive" follow up" letter addressed to you, you submitted to an unannounced test for alcohol and drugs on Monday,

November 2, 1998.

I was advised that your test result was positive. As you know the presence in the body of illicit drugs while on company

business or premises constitutes a violation of section (G)(1)(b) of the Policy.

Section (1)(5) of the Policy provides that a positive test result is grounds for disciplinary action. This is your second

violation of the Policy. You were informed, in the above mentioned letter, that a subsequent violation would result in

further disciplineup to and including immediate terminationwithout notice or pay in lieu of notice.

33 The underlined words make it clear that the terminationwas for violating the terms of the May 2, 1997 letter andfor (a

second) violation of the Alcohol and Drug AbusePolicy. It is insufficient therefore to focus solely on the breach of the policy.

The impact of the May 2, 1997 letter must also be considered. However, in doing so, we must weigh the Union's argument that

the May 2 letter itself incorporates and relies upon the policy. Thus, on the basis of the Union's approach, the validity of thepolicy becomes an issue no matter which way the Employer attempts to justify the termination.

34 To assess the Employer's proof of just cause we need to separate these conflicting approaches. However, we recognize

that the Employer relies on both approaches and that the Union argues that they are inextricably linked.

35 There is another overarching issue involved in this case, which is linked to these conflicting approaches. The collective

agreement contains a fixed time within which grievances must be filed. It is not contested that Mr. Parsons' grievance about

his terminationon November 13, 1998 is timely. However, the Employer argues that Mr. Parsons cannot, having acquiesced

in the terms of his continued employment, raise the validity of the April 17 th test or the May 2 nd and May 5 th discipline

in a grievance only filed one and one-half years later. This element of the case requires that we address the legality of the

testing, the conditions imposing testing and the conditions specifying the consequences of failing a test, at three distinct points

in the chronology.

1. The incident of April 17, 1997 and the taking of the initial test.

2. The legality of the conditions imposed on Mr. Parsons on May 2, 1997 as a result of the overflow incident and his

369 nanograms test.

3. The legality of the Employer's having randomly tested Mr. Parsons for drugs on November 2, 1998 and then disciplining

him for a result of .22 nanograms.

36 The Union argues that Imperial Oil's promulgated rules (the policy) are unreasonable and have been held as such by other

decisions. They are also, it argues, discriminatory. Therefore, Imperial Oil:

should not have tested Mr. Parsons following the overflow incident in April 1997.

should not have imposed compliance with its policy as a condition of reinstatement in May of 1997.

should not have continued to randomly test Mr. Parsons, particularly in November 1998 (the failed test).

was unjustified in viewing the failed test in November 1998 as worthy of disciplinebecause

it tells you nothing about whether he was impaired at work.


15/56



such a finding depended upon its being indicative of a breach of a policy which is itself unreasonable and

discriminatory.

37 Some of the cases the Union relies upon to support these propositions arise from policy grievances. Others arise from

situations where the employee in question is disciplined or penalized in some way in the first instance as a result of the application

of a general policy that applies to all employees. Here, Mr. Parsons only became exposed to the random testing aspect of the

policy because he had been involved in an earlier incident and because Imperial continued to employ him at that time butsubject to conditions.

38 In our view, the question - Is a policy, in a general sense, unreasonable or discriminatory? is material different from -

Was it unreasonable or discriminatory to impose the conditions laid out in that policy upon an individual as a condition of his

continued employment following an event like that of April 17 th , 1997? These questions overlap, but they are not the same.

39 The Employer's first answer to the Union's attack on the Drug and Alcohol Policy is that, even without any drug testing

results, there are grounds for dismissing Mr. Parsons. It suggests the gross neglect involved in the spill is of itself sufficient

cause. That submission cannot succeed. Mr. Parsons' grievance is about his terminationin November 1998, not directly about

the incident in April 1997. If there is no culminating incident in November 1998, there can be no basis for resurrecting and

revisiting Imperial Oil's decision not to dismiss Mr. Parsons in April 1997. The alleged culminating incident in November

1998 depends upon their having been a test appropriately taken and failed. Without the negative test result in 1998 there is no

culminating incident whatsoever.

40 We must therefore consider whether the policies, as applied to Mr. Parsons' particular situation, are valid and enforceable.

We begin by analyzing the two principle attacks the Union makes against the Alcohol and Drug AbusePolicy itself:

(a) That it is an unreasonable exercise of management's authority, and

(b) That it is discriminatory, contrary to both the collective agreement and Alberta's Human Rights legislation.

41 While the policy has many detailed provisions, the crucial ones for our analysis at this stage are the provisions that:

In some circumstances allow employees to be subjected to random tests for drugs.

Provide for mandatory testing for drugs following:

a significant work accident, incident or near miss as determined by management;

where reasonable cause exists to suspect alcohol or drug use or possession in violation of the policy.

Subjects an employee to disciplinebecause of the presence in their body of illicit drugs while on company business or

premises, as established by failing a screening test for cannabinoids of 15 or more nanograms per milliliter followed by

a confirmatory test of 20 or more nanograms per milliliter.

Reasonable Rules

42 The Union submits that Imperial Oil cannot terminate Mr. Parsons for violating Section G(1)(b) of its Alcohol and Drug

AbusePolicy (the presence of drugs in the body) because the rule embodied in that policy is unreasonable. As we noted above

it challenges the rule with equal force if the terminationis for breach of the condition in the letter of May 2, to the extent that

letter requires compliance with those same rules.

43 The general law on disciplinefor employer promulgated rules is set out in the decision in:

Lumber & Sawmill Workers' Union, Local 2537 v. KVP Co.(1965), 16 L.A.C. 73(Ont. Arb.) (Robinson)
http://nextcanada.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&pubNum=6407&serNum=1965069024&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&contextData=(sc.Search)


16/56



44 Brown and Beattie,Labour Arbitration in Canadaat 4:1500 describe the KVP rule as follows:

Even where such rules do not form part of the agreement, it is now generally conceded that in the absence of specific

language to the contrary in the collective agreement, the making of such rules lies within the prerogative or initiative

of management, and arbitrators have held this to be so whether or not an express management's rights clause exists

reserving the right of management to direct the work force. However, this rule-making power is neither absolute nor

without limitation. Rather, as summarized in KVP Co. Ltd., a number of principles relating to this power have now becomeuniversally accepted among arbitrators. These principles provide that

I - Characteristics of Such Rule

A rule unilaterally introduced by the company, and not subsequently agreed to by the union, must satisfy the following

requisites:

1. It must not be inconsistent with the collective agreement.

2. It must not be unreasonable.

3. It must be clear and unequivocal.

4. It must be brought to the attention of the employee affected before the company can act on it.

5. The employee concerned must have been notified that a breach of such rule could result in his discharge if the rule

is used as a foundation for discharge.

6. Such rule should have been consistently enforced by the company from the time it was introduced.

II - Effect of Such Rule re Discharges

1. If the breach of the rule is the foundation for the discharge of an employee such rule is not binding upon the board of

arbitration dealing with the grievance, except to the extent that the action of

imperial oil ltd v cep local 777

Documents