So, under the new law, can employers still refuse to hire new employees, or discipline existing ones for using, as presumably they can and do with alcohol? Intoxicated is intoxicated, regardless of the substance.
On the other hand, there's no need to mandate three hots and a cot to drunks of any sort, unless they drive that way.
Pappy348;
Good morning to you sir, I hope all is well in your world on this second last Friday of October.
The short answer is that labor law remains largely in the realm of the provinces, which in my view is as it should be.
Here in BC, where the consumption of pot has to be the highest in Canada - double entendre intended - employers have the ability to stop any worker any time they deem them "unfit or unsafe" to work. There is no burden to prove the causation of the impairment either by the way.
That said, we can't summarily fire anyone for it who isn't a probationary employee - under 90 days with the company.
Again though, if a given employee is deemed "unfit or unsafe" to perform their given task too, too many times, their days absolutely are numbered and there isn't a labor board member green/Green enough to make a case for such a person. Union members will have their individual union and rep to back them up - or not.
It is - in my experience - pretty thin ice to skate upon trying to make a case to remain employed at that point.
Anyway sir, hopefully that makes sense - impaired is impaired whether it's weed, alcohol, prescription meds or a really bad flu - same as always.
All the best to you this fall and good luck on your remaining hunts this fall.
Dwayne
Edit;
While it's still untested, I'd expect that mandatory drug testing for dry camps or specific tasks will still hold up in court as long as the testing is for all employees.
It was the "random tests" which didn't hold up, so nowadays everybody going to a site or camp can get tested and a fail is a fail same as always.
