View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 22 -employers of the burden of demonstrating existing drug and alcohol problems prior totesting. On the other hand, the board held the narrow approach could be found in theOntario cases such as Entrop, discussed above, and International Union of OperatingEngineers Local 793 v. Sarnia Cranes Ltd., [1999] O.L.R.D. No. 1282 (QL). The boarddecision in Bantrel was upheld on judicial review (2007 ABQB 721, [2007] A.J. No.1330 (QL)) but quashed on appeal (2009 ABCA 84, [2009] A.J. No. 216 (QL)).[44] While I might want to quibble with the interpretation placed on Entrop inBantrel Constructors Co., there is no question that Sarnia Cranes reflects the 1990sjurisprudence holding that if “mandatory universal testing” is to be justified there shouldbe evidence of a drug or alcohol problem in the workplace which cannot be combated insome less invasive way: see Provincial-American Truck Transporters and Teamstersunion, Loc. 880, Re, [1991] O.L.A.A. No. 16 (QL), and C.H. Heist Ltd. And E.C.W.U.,Loc. 848, Re, [1991] O.L.A.A. No. 48 (QL). If it were necessary to distinguish SarniaCranes, one would simply note that the case dealt, in a peripheral manner, with randomalcohol and drug testing, and also that much of the analysis was directed at the validity ofthe drug testing aspects of the policy.2011 NBCA 58 (CanLII)[45] The other arbitration decision which offers an extensive review of thearbitral jurisprudence is Navistar. In that case, the union challenged the employer'sadoption of a Substance Abuse Prevention Policy (SAPP), which included drug andalcohol testing for reasonable cause, and post-incident situations, but not random testing.The union also challenged the employer's determination that all warehouse associates, theentire bargaining unit, occupied safety sensitive positions which subjected them to thetesting provisions. The parties agreed to sever the issues raised by the union's grievanceand proceed only on the threshold issue of whether the employer's facility was a safetysensitive workplace where any drug and alcohol testing was appropriate. The workplacein issue was a warehouse and distribution facility where automotive parts were stored andshipped to various locations. The employer argued that the facility was a safety sensitiveenvironment due to the work performed by the warehouse associates operating heavydutyindustrial vehicles weighing 6,000 to 8,000 pounds. The arbitrator concluded the