Marijuana Possession And Use At Work Justified Dismissal, Despite Employee’s “Drug Problem”


A mining company employee was properly dismissed for possessing and using marijuana at work, a labour arbitrator has held.  And the employee had not proven that he had a drug problem that required the employer to accommodate.

The employee worked as a Plating Tankman at Vale’s refinery in Thompson, Manitoba.  The company had alcohol and drug policies aimed at safety in the workplace.  The policies prohibited use and possession of illicit drugs at work. The arbitrator decided that the evidence was clear that despite the company’s efforts, there was a drug problem in the workplace.

The employee admitted that he had worked under the influence.  He argued, though, that under human rights legislation, the employer was required to accommodate his “drug problem”.  According to the arbitrator, the employee “described a pattern of marijuana use and abuse that was certainly consistent with an addiction illness.”  The employee claimed that he had been a heavy marijuana user since about age fifteen.  He also claimed that the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba, where he had taken treatment, confirmed that he had an addiction diagnosis.

However, the arbitrator decided that the employee’s failure to produce, at arbitration, a formal written diagnosis of addiction from the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba led to an “adverse inference” that the report would not support the employee’s claim that he was addicted.  Further, the employee’s testimony about his pattern of marijuana use was questionable due to the problems with the employee’s credibility; he had been dishonest with the company when he was initially confronted about his marijuana use at work.

As a result, the arbitrator decided that the employee “had a problem with marijuana use but a dependency or addiction was not established on the evidence.” As such, he was not entitled to accommodation under human rights legislation.

The arbitrator decided that the drug use in this case was “especially egregious in that there was ongoing and frequent use with a hidden drug cache on the premises.”  The company had just cause to dismiss the employee.

Vale (Manitoba Operations) v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Local 6166 (Arne Peltz, Labour Arbitrator, August 2, 2013)

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dentons | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.