Heather D. Hoiness

Vancouver Drydock Co. Ltd. v. Marine Workers and Boilermakers Industrial Union, Local 1, 2020 CanLII 75896

The arbitrator agreed with the union that the results of drug testing that was ruled to be improper, including any evidence that flowed directly from the testing (referral to an IME doctor,  monitoring, etc), was not admissible in the proceeding.  To admit the evidence would tacitly condone improper drug testing.  In doing so the arbitrator disagreed with an approach found in some Alberta cases, including ATCO Electric [2017] A.G.A.A. No. 7, a case which employer’s typically rely upon to seek to admit such evidence.

Read the case here.

Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia v. Heringa (unreported)

The Association successfully argued that the Member’s failure to provide information it requested during a complaint investigation was serious professional misconduct that thwarted the Association’s ability to conduct its investigation efficiently and undermined its public interest mandate. The penalty sought by the Association was ordered.

Read the determination on liability here.

Read the determination on penalty and costs here.

Vancouver Drydock Co. Ltd v. Marine Workers and Boilermakers Industrial Union, Local 1, 2020 CanLII 75896

The Union successfully argued that the Employer did not have the right to require the greivor to take a urine test pursuant to its substance use policy. The Arbitrator agreed with the Union that the Employer did not have reasonable grounds to insist on a urine test, including because there were no signs of impairment. The Arbitrator further agreed with the Union that whether it has grounds to demand a breath test (for alcohol),  a urine test (for drug use), or both,  must be considered by the Employer and it is not automatic that just because the Employer had reasonable grounds to demand a breath test, that it had grounds to demand a urine test.

View the case here.