[Conner Lantz]

in reply to: Answer for Progressive Discipline for Drug Recreational User #86855

Frederik:
First, for the benefit of other users, I want to expressly spell out the crucial legal point on which your Q is based:
ADDICTION to drugs or alcohol IS a disability requiring accommodations to the point of undue hardship under human rights laws.
CASUAL or RECREATIONAL use is NOT a disability requiring accommodations.
RESULT: You’re free to negotiate whatever penalties you want for positive tests determined to be the result of recreational use–minimum 3 days, etc., without accounting for accommodations.
Of course, the standard rules for discipline will still apply–penalties must be fair, proportional, transparent, consistent and meted out after appropriate investigation. But accommodations don’t enter into the equation if the use is recreational.
As for your second Q, I work for a small, non-union organization so our model probably isn’t all that relevant to your situation. But what I can tell you is that your approach of investigating positive tests to determine whether the employee is an addict or casual user is not only widely followed in union settings but mandatory for all settings.
The scale of penalties will depend on a bunch of factors including the type of workplace you have, whether affected employees are safety-sensitive and, of course, your bargaining leverage vis-à-vis the union.
Hope that helps.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Conner Lantz]

in reply to: Answer for Progressive Discipline for Drug Recreational User #86854

Thank you Glenn, I appreciate your help.

 

[Conner Lantz]

in reply to: Answer for Progressive Discipline for Drug Recreational User #86853

You’re welcome, Frederik. Keep me/us posted on what happens.

[Conner Lantz]

in reply to: Answer for Payment when leave is used up #86852

I don’t have enough information to answer that Q but what I can do is outline an approach that you can either follow yourself or send me the info so I can do it for you:
1. Which jurisdiction are you in? Need to know this so I can look at the applicable ESA laws to determine the legislatively required minimum benefits–in this case, for paid leave.
2. What do your collective agreements/employee contracts provide? Need to know this to determine if you’re contractually obligated to provide more generous paid leave than required under your ESA laws.
3. What is the basis for the absence? Need to know this on the off chance that the absence qualifies for PAID leave under the ESA law, e.g., the new Ontario Bill 148 requirement of 10 days’ Personal Emergency Leave per year, 2 of which must be paid.
Sorry I can’t provide a specific answer but I hope this will lead us to one–or empower you to make the determination yourself.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Conner Lantz]

in reply to: Answer for Overtime Agreements #86851

Interesting Q, Monique.
Caveat: Since I don’t know what jurisdiction you’re in, I can’t look up what your particular Labour Standards law says re: overtime procedures. I’m also not sure what Admin. Procedure you’re referring to.
What I can do, though, is offer a general answer based on the way labour standards overtime rules work.
Role of the labour standards laws: Lay out basic ground rules governing overtime arrangements.
Role of the overtime contract: Furnish the specific, operational details of the particular arrangement in accordance with the labour standards rules and restrictions.
Examples: Overtime averaging and banking. The labour standards laws explain when, if ever, such arrangements are allowed at all, whether they require govt. and/or employee approval, restrictions that apply, etc. It’s then up to the employers and employees to negotiate an appropriate averaging or banking arrangement that complies with those restrictions and secure the required approvals.
Hope that helps.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Conner Lantz]

in reply to: Answer for Moonlighting #86850

Your employee is dead wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! He does NOT have the right to do whatever he darn well wants away from work, not if he wants to keep his job with you. It’s called conflict of interest and it’s grounds for termination with cause–even if it’s not specified in a contract or employment offer.
Now I’m not telling you to fire the man, especially if he’s a valued employee. In fact, his going to a lawyer is probably the best thing that can happen. Any lawyer worth his or her salt will set this yoyo straight about conflict of interest.
Also want to be clear that my lack of love for what this guy is doing is NOT moonlighting per se but doing the same exact job as he’s doing for his ”daylight” employee. Moonlighting of any sort without permission makes it even worse.
Hope this helps and hope you can resolve this without wielding the axe.
Glenn Demby, 203 354-4532

[Conner Lantz]

in reply to: Answer for Random Drug Testing #86849

Kathleen: NO, you CAN’T implement random drug testing under the circumstances you describe even if you wanted to. Not sure if you’ve heard, but last week, the AB Q Ct issued an injunction barring Suncor from enforcing its random drug policy on privacy grounds. And believe you me, their safety compulsion was significantly greater than the one you describe.
Remains to be seen whether Suncor injunction survives appeal but for now at least, Suncor can’t do random drug testing and neither can you. And while Suncor has a good shot at ultimate vindication for random testing, if you have no safety-related drug problems at your site, your chances of random testing (under 2013 S Ct Irving decision) are zero.
Thx.

[Author]

Posts