PSAC Wins Drug Testing Grievance

Another example unions can point to when arguing similar situations.

Unions are virtually unanimous in believing random workplace drug testing is intrusive and an unreasonable exercise of management rights. That view was endorsed by an arbitrator who ruled on a case involving a grievance filed by the Public Service Aliance of Canada Local 00004 against the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA).

Although the ruling directly pertains to only one employer's drug policy and one grievance, what happened in previous similar situations is always important in determining the outcome of any labour dispute. The grievance was originally filed in 2001, but it took until recently to arrive at the arbitrator's ruling. The GTAA's Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy, which was developed and implemented without union input, cast a wide net and called for provocative measures such as random drug testing involving urine samples, pre-appointment testing and the imposition of discipline upon a positive test.

Noting that a positive drug test does not indicate impairment, the arbitrator rejected employer arguments that positive tests legitimately alert the employer to increased safety risks. Highlighting the disconnect between drug test results, impairment and safety, the arbitrator pointed to a Supreme Court of Canada decision that ruled that the employer could not justify the discriminatory aspects of a drug policy because the testing could not be shown to be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of a work-related purpose.

"This is a step forward for the rights of workers at GTAA and at every other airport across Canada," said Gerry Halabecki, Regional Executive Vice-president for the PSAC in Ontario. "Management crossed the line with the imposition of these tests. The arbitrator's decision sends a clear message that our members have the right to work in dignity against invasive examinations that violate their personal privacy."