We are vehemently against any kind of discrimination and here we wanted to impart a story that once happened to one individual.

Let’s call him Al. Being an experienced programmer, Al was looking for a job in the field of his expertise. It took him quite a long while before he eventually landed a position of programmer at one small company. Looks like dream came true. Al was happy and marked the occasion with a party. Next day, his first day at work, Al bore some traces of the last night celebration. Apparently, this circumstance caused his new boss’s suspicion and Al immediately was let go. In a private chat with Al, the manager evasively expressed his concern with Al’s possible alcohol addiction and consequences that it might have on work. But as long as there was a probationary period, the official reason for firing was stated as “in the result of the unsuccessful probationary period”

We have to make it clear that no behavioural incident or accident has occurred during Al’s first day, nor was there any thread of such incident or accident. Thus, one may think that Al might have just revealed his unsuitability for the job and that’s why was let go. But it was only his first day at work. You should be quite sure to judge somebody’s competence or incompetence in such a short period of time, shouldn’t you? Any new hire has the right for a probationary period of up to 3 or, in some places, 6 months or more, if only there is no serious cause for immediate termination. May manager’s perception of the employee’s impairment be considered as a serious cause for such a rapid termination? Or, does the management have all rights to dismiss employees for the cause of substance abuse?

Let’s look at the situation closer. The manager did not have any proved evidence of his employee’s substance abuse, as no alcohol test has been taken verifying employee’s impairment. Moreover, any alcohol or drug testing would have been hardly legitimate for this kind of job.  Tests of this kind could have been permissible only for reasonable cause, where the employee demonstrated clear evidence of substance abuse, and only as part of a broader program of medical assessment, monitoring and support, by no means, as a reason for immediate dismissal.

As opposed to the United States, the Canadian Human Rights Commission policy related to drug and alcohol testing imposes more limits on employers. In Canada, alcohol or drug addiction is, by definition, a disability. The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability or an employer’s perception of an employee’s unsuitability for job because of a disability.

There are four types of alcohol and drug testing that might be legitimate (BFOR*) in the workplace. And one of them is a random alcohol testing in safety-sensitive* jobs. Al’s job was a programmer which hardly can be considered safety sensitive, as it did not imply a direct involvement in a high-risk operation. He was not a surgeon, truck driver or an aircraft pilot and did not pose any danger to his coworkers or the environment, even if presumably he would have been impaired by alcohol. To crown it all, no incident or accident happened during that day, that might have been resulted from alcohol abuse and would have necessitated alcohol testing.

The message that we wanted to deliver here is: if you have any doubts regarding your management’s actions, do not let it go. To deal with situations like this there are different ways:

First of all, if you have a situation at your work that cannot be settled by yourself, just look for advice of an HR or legal professional (preferably an independent one). Or call your provincial Human Rights Commission, where you can receive either real help or clarifications on your situation.

Note: About other types of drug and alcohol testing you can read in “Drug and Alcohol Testing” article.