[16] I respectfully submit that the Court of Appeal erred in failing to comply with the Tribunal`s injunction that the decisions of labour arbitrators be appropriately reviewed and that their legal and actual findings are taken into account in the interpretation of collective agreements. This misastasing of the standard of auditing led the Court of Appeal of its mission to determine whether the Chamber`s decision falls within a number of reasonable conclusions and to replace its own opinions on the legal framework and the correct findings. It also resulted in the Tribunal essentially failing to comply with the remarkably consistent arbitral award for the balance between safety and privacy in an unsafe workplace, instead imposing a new, unrestricted and automatic solution, outside of the existing consensus and expectations of the labour relations community on how to deal with these issues in a collective agreement. [9] Irving operates a kraft paper mill in Saint John, New Brunswick. Between 1991 and 2006, Irving did not have a formal policy on alcohol and drug use at the mill. In 2006, it unilaterally adopted a “substance use policy”, in accordance with the administrative clause of the collective agreement, without negotiation with the union. The directive introduced drug or alcohol testing for employees in positions deemed “safety sensitive” by Irving. Nanticoke – Unifor`s bargaining committee, which represents employees at the Nanticoke Imperial Oil plant, has reached a preliminary collective agreement with the employer. The arbitration rules do not recognize the absolute right of employers to unilaterally impose corporate rules on their employees outside the collective bargaining process. Rather, it is for the employer to justify such rules on the basis of compliance with the standards set out in the arbitration case law. In this case, the only disputed standard was the adequacy of the policy. The key issue is the threshold of proof that the employer had to introduce to prove its burden, prove its relevance and thus justify its random breath testing policy.

Industrial relations – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Management rights – Data protection – Employers unilaterally impose a mandatory directive on random blood alcohol testing for workers – That a random examination directive be unilaterally a valid exercise of the employer`s management rights under the collective agreement – Whether the employer could unilaterally implement a policy if there is no sufficient reason or preu There was no alcohol abuse at the atz work meeting. “For this agreement, it was important to recognize the important contribution of Unifor members to the success of the Nanticoke Imperial Facility,” said Keith Punchak, President of Unifor Local 900. [21] As the Board recognized, the only possible source of the employer`s right to unilaterally conduct random blood alcohol testing was the management rights clause in the collective agreement: [8] In a thoughtful and careful decision of nearly 80 pages, a majority of the Conciliation Body concluded, in this case, using the arbitration system, that the employer, Irving Pulp & Paper, Limited, exceeded the scope of its management rights under a collective agreement by pre-providing random blood alcohol tests in the absence of evidence of a drinking problem in the workplace. . . .