We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The Supreme Court of Canada will decide whether an employer must
have "reasonable cause" to conduct random alcohol testing
on unionized employees, or whether an inherently dangerous
workplace is sufficient to justify random alcohol testing.
In the case, a unionized Irving Pulp and Paper employee, who
occupied a safety sensitive position, was randomly tested for
alcohol using a breathalyser. The test revealed a blood alcohol
level of zero. Nevertheless, the union filed a policy grievance
challenging the provision of the policy that permitted random
alcohol testing "without cause".
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal decided that Irving's
kraft paper mill was an inherently dangerous workplace, and that
Irving did not have to prove that there was an existing alcohol
problem in the workplace in order to conduct random alcohol
testing.
The union has appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The
SCC's decision will be of interest to employers across
Canada.
FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law
firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices
located in the country's key business centres. We focus on
providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we
strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless
of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of
professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national
and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for
consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and
counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to
diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on
our clients' needs. Visit:
www.fmc-law.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Federal Court of Appeal recently weighed in to reconcile competing tests on the proper way to determine whether an individual is a contractor or truly an employee.
A discussion on a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which confirms that the central question is, whether the person is performing the services as his own business, on his own account.
Back in July 2012, we covered "PVYW v Comcare" (No 2), [2012] FCA 395, which concerned an employee in the HR department of an Australian government agency who was injured on a work-related trip to a country town in New South Wales.
The employee, Ashworth, alleged that the manager demanded that she close the door and then positioned herself in front of the closed door and started screaming and pointing her finger in the employee’s face.
Some organizations subscribe to the close your eyes and think good thoughts school of drafting, when it comes to non-competition agreements in employment contracts.
A discussion on the judicial decision in a recent case, where a BC employer has successfully defended a claim for constructive dismissal despite taking away supervisory duties and moving the employee from an office to a cubicle.
Employment, Labour and Immigration Law in Canada Preview 
