The Latest Advice On Efficient Products In Whmis Classroom

Stewart is not requiredto show that his termination was caused solely or even primarily byhis drug dependency. Rather, Mr. Stewart must only show that thereis a "connection" between the protected ground �his drug dependency � and the adverse effect...Mr.Stewart's exercise of some control over his drug use merelyreduced the extent to which his dependency contributed to histermination � it did not eliminate it as a "factor"in his termination..." They considered "Mr. Stewart's impaired control overhis cocaine use" to be "obviously connected to histermination for testing positive for cocaine after being involvedin a workplace accident." Accordingly, the "Tribunal unreasonably focused on Mr.Stewart's limited capacity to control his choices and behaviourregarding his use of drugs and failed to consider the connectionbetween his drug dependency and his employer's decision to firehim." Why did Justices Moldaver and Wagner Find the Tribual'sConclusion on Undue Hardship to be Reasonable? Given the Majority's conclusion that a finding of primafacie discrimination on the basis of a connection between anaddiction and adverse treatment will depend upon the facts of eachcase, the most positive aspect of the decision for employers may beJustices Moldaver and Wagner's commentary on unduehardship: The underlying policy rationale forthe "no free accident" rule was deterrence. Workplace safety is a relevantconsideration when assessing undue hardship. "Subjecting Mr. Stewart to anindividual assessment or imposing an unpaid suspension for alimited period as a disciplinary measure instead of imposing theserious and immediate consequences of termination would underminethe Policy's deterrent effect ... [that] would compromise theemployer's valid objective to prevent employees from usingdrugs in a way that could give rise to serious harm in itssafety-sensitive workplace." Mr. Stewart is only entitled toreasonable accommodation in the circumstances; not perfectaccommodation.

For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/605372/Health+Safety/Elk+Valley+Decision+SCC+Finds+That+Enforcement+Of+No+Free+Accident+Rule+In+Workplace+Drug+And+Alcohol+Policy+Does+Not+Violate+Human+Rights+Legislation

You may also be interested to read