Summary of Issue: Substance Abuse

Decision 75940 Full Text of Decision 75940

The Commission refused to pay the claimant benefits because of his own misconduct. After failing a first drug test, the claimant was suspended and went into a rehabilitation program. However, after the program he failed another drug test and was dismissed. The Board finds as fact that the claimant tested positive for cocaine and opiates on both tests. The employer had a substance policy which prohibited the use of drugs. The claimant had been made aware of the policy when he was hired. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 74557 Full Text of Decision 74557

Following a derailment, pursuant to his employer's policy, the claimant was required to submit to a drug test. He contested the employer's right to require such a test but nevertheless submitted to the test. He tested positive for cocaine use. The employer has a zero tolerance policy in regard to drug use. This policy provides that testing positive for drugs while working in subject to dismissal. As a result of his positive drug test, the claimant was dismissed. In his appeal to the Board of Referees, the claimant explained that he had used cocaine three days prior to the derailment while on leave. He argued that there was no evidence that he had been impaired or under the influence of drugs at the time he reported for work and the derailment occurred. He acknowledged that he was aware of the employer's drug policy but had no idea the drugs he has used three days earlier would still be present in his system. The appeal by the commission is allowed.

Decision 49361 Full Text of Decision 49361

Claimant dismissed for theft of $20,000 from her employer to meet her cocaine needs. Alleged that she was not responsible for her actions since she was continually under the influence of the cocaine and suffered from a drug-induced illness. BOR allowed the claimant's appeal based on the fact that the person had put her life in order and ruled that the employer should have proceeded on a gradual punitive basis. Error according to the Umpire. Nothing in the file to relieve the claimant of responsibility for the repeated crimes that she admitted having committed.

Decision 35381 Full Text of Decision 35381

The claimant provided 2 false ROEs and explained her behaviour by a dependence on drugs and alcohol. The umpire distinguished this case from the decision in Tucker (A-381-85) and held that the claimant should have been in possession of all her faculties and knew what she was doing at the time of the offence.

Decision A-0381.85 Full Text of Decision A-0381.85

The Umpire went too far in her characterization. One should not confuse a certain action and the effects thereof. Only the action needs be wilful even if effects are not intended. Impairment is not an action, it is the effect of an action. Flight attendant who took medication not prescribed for her. Impairment alone is not sufficient to show misconduct if it is inadvertant and not the result of wilful conduct. Mental intention to be addressed.