Calgary Herald

March 21, 1998

By Paula Arad,
The Canadian Press

‘ZERO-TOLERANCE’ AT IMPERIAL OIL

Drug-testing policy riles refinery workers

TORONTO –

Imperial Oil is still forcing a tough drug-testing policy on employees across Canada despite a court ruling that the program is discriminatory.

"It’s disgusting that a company of this magnitude and class is doing this." said Scott James, an operator at Imperial’s refinery in Sarnia, Ont.

"The policy is a crock of beans."

Imperial says it can enforce the policy because the provincial court decision it’s appealing was unclear in it’s order to the company.

The January ruling upheld a 1993 landmark decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission that found Imperial’s policy relied on stereotypes about people with drug or alcohol problems.

The policy, implemented in 1991, requires its 7,000 employees to reveal any drug and alcohol problems, no matter how old. Failure to do so could lead to firing.

While the zero-tolerance policy applies to all workers, those in less supervised "safety-sensitive" jobs - about 700 people - are subject to even harsher rules such as random testing for drug and alcohol use, said Barbara Hejduk, an Imperial spokeswoman.

"People are upset," said David Dennis, an operator at Imperial’s refinery in Sarnia, Ont., where the initial human rights complaint originated in 1992. Some 350 employees there are subject to random testing.

"I find it embarrassing to urinate in a bottle. It’s demeaning," said Dennis, who has been tested twice in seven weeks. "There doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to the number of times you can e tested. I don’t drink alcohol of any kind and I certainly don’t do drugs. I never have. This is why I find it personally offensive," said Dennis.

A computer program determines how often employees are tested but it’s at lest once a year, said Hejduk. It’s not likely, but workers could be tested every time they work a shift, she said.

Hejduk was aware employees are unhappy with the company’s position, but said, it’s a stand Imperial must take to ensure safety.

"That is a big farce." said James. "We have more safety features built in than you could imagine. I could not blow up this place if I wanted to."

Both he and Dennis agreed there’s a need for a strict policy to maintain standards, but objected to being tested without reason. "As soon as you walk in the gates you have to prove you’re innocent," said James, who complained the testing area in not very private.

Marty Entrop, the employee who brought the initial complaint against the company in 1992, said the battle ahead is less painful than what he and his family have been through.