Termination for Cause Upheld After Employee Refuses to Comply with Return to Work Substance Abuse Program

In Quong v Lafarge Canada Inc, 2024 ABKB 340 the court rejected a claim for wrongful termination made by an employee who was fired after refusing to undergo a drug abuse assessment and enroll in a substance abuse treatment as a requirement for being allowed to return to work.

The employee was involved in a minor car accident while in a company truck on company hours. The employee tested positive for THC (cannabis) in the test conducted after the accident. In accordance with Lafarge's Drug and Alcohol Policy, the employee was notified that he must complete a drug addiction assessment and take part in Lafarge's substance abuse program prior to being allowed to resume work. The employee declined to comply with the request, citing that it was "offensive, unreasonable, and excessively intrusive into [his] privacy". Lafarge subsequently let the employee go.

Justice Feasibly observed that employers are required to ensure a safe working environment. Furthermore, Alberta case law establishes "employers have a legitimate interest in preventing employees from using cannabis in their private time if cannabis remains in the employees’ body when at work." Quong acknowledged that his role as a Site Superintendent was safety-sensitive and involved working at worksites with heavy equipment and serious workplace hazards.

Justice Feasby determined that Lafarge's policy, which mandates testing to ascertain if an employee has a drug addiction, is directly connected to the fit for work assessment. In addition, Justice Feasby noted that the obligation to undergo random drug testing during the two-year period of returning to work was not considered an unwarranted violation of privacy. He stated that after an employee tests positive for drugs following a workplace incident, any privacy concerns that could potentially prevent random drug testing are overridden by the need to ensure safety.

Nevertheless, in this particular situation, intentionally refusing to comply with a policy that is crucial for maintaining a secure work environment is not compatible with ongoing employment. Mr. Quong's refusal amounted to a rejection of his employment contract. Reaching this final conclusion, Justice Feasby noted: “The wilful refusal to abide by a policy critical to ensuring a safe workplace is incompatible with continued employment. Mr. Quong’s refusal constituted a repudiation of his employment contract."

If you have questions about testing rules for safety-sensitive positions, reach out to our legal team to set up a free consultation. For questions about this case, or general employment law questions Contact Us.