Employers should be aware of an additional tool that can be used to detect employees who are impaired at work. "Impairment Testing" may be a more effective, less invasive way to measure employee impairment.
In general, drug and alcohol testing programs are implemented with the best of intentions - to ensure workplace safety and decrease accidents. Yet to date, employers – including those with employees in safety-sensitive positions – have encountered resistance to the implementation of these programs. Judges, arbitrators and tribunals have thwarted employers’ attempts to implement these programs, pointing out (among other problems) the lack of connection between a positive test result and actual impairment at work. Yet it is in everyone’s best interests to continue to pursue the original goal: ensuring the safety of employees and the public.
Impairment Testing, either alone or in combination with a drug and alcohol testing program, is an alternative that may encounter fewer legal barriers, and may also be a more cost-effective and successful strategy for ensuring workplace safety and the health of employees.
Impairment Testing (also called fitness-for-duty testing or FFD testing) has existed for decades and is used by some employers. Impairment testing measures impaired functioning, rather than the presence of drugs or alcohol. Significantly, it also detects impairment resulting from illness, fatigue, and many other causes. The testing methods available provide instantaneous feedback to employers regarding an employee’s ability to work safely at that point in time, before a safety issue arises.
Other potential benefits to Impairment Testing :
Fewer legal barriers as compared to traditional drug and/or alcohol testing programs
Increased ability to do drug and/or alcohol testing as failed impairment tests could support a "reasonable suspicion" basis for testing
If you would like to discuss whether Impairment Testing might be appropriate in your workplace, or receive a one-hour presentation on this issue for your senior management staff, please contact Gabe Somjen for further information and advice.
Unfortunately, reasonable accommodation for employees in the workplace continues to be the source of significant litigation and even today we continue to see outrageous examples of employers behaving badly.
We are now beginning to see reported cases involving charges and subsequent fines laid against employers for failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect a worker from workplace violence.
On October 13, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal an Ontario Court of Appeal decision which ordered an employer to pay a former employee 37 months of salary and benefits following termination.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).