MANITOBA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION POLICY - A-8 - EMPLOYMENT—DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING - Policy version 1.0

Sep 18, 2026

Upload by Aditya

Manitoba Human Rights Commission Policy A-8 outlines the employment policy on drug and alcohol testing, including its purpose to align workplace practices with the Human Rights Code. It explains the workplace risks associated with impairment and describes common testing approaches while emphasizing that testing and severe discipline for positive results can discriminate against employees with drug or alcohol dependency disabilities. The policy discusses how justification must follow human rights principles, including Meiorin and Grismer, requiring rational job connection, good faith, reasonable necessity, and reasonable accommodation up to undue hardship.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryHealthcare

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

SECTION: Application

Purpose

Context

The Code and disability under drug or alcohol dependence

How drug and alcohol testing may violate The Code

Meiorin test and requirements for justification

MANITOBA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION POLICY \# A-8 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS’ POLICY version 1.0 SECTION: Application Effective date: February 25, 2005 SUBJECT: EMPLOYMENT—DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING Purpose: This policy is intended to assist in the understanding and application of The Human Rights Code (“The Code”). Where there is any conflict between this policy and The Code , The Code prevails. Context: Drug and alcohol use/abuse in the workplace is a matter of legitimate concern for employers, from a variety of perspectives. It may be desirable to prohibit any alcohol or illegal drug possession or consumption in the workplace. Similarly, it is generally undesirable that employees should be under the influence of such substances during work hours, even if consumption occurs earlier. In some job situations, the impairment of an employee’s skills or judgment by alcohol or drugs can place that employee or others at risk of serious harm, or seriously jeopardise an employer’s operations in other ways. In an attempt to deal with such harms, drug and alcohol testing programs have become increasingly common. Such testing may be performed on a random basis (either universally or with respect to specific individuals), or following a specific workplace incident which generates concerns about an individual’s behaviour, or even as a preemployment requirement. However, drug and alcohol testing potentially generates significant human rights concerns.1 While the objective of preventing employees from possessing, using, or being under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol while on the job is, in itself, not discriminatory, unreasonable testing and/or automatic or severe discipline (or other job-related consequences) for positive test results discriminates against certain employees in a manner prohibited by The Code. Although this policy addresses the issue in an employment context, it is also applicable 1 Testing programs frequently arise in the context of "zero tolerance" policies. While the other components of zero tolerance initiatives are not the subject of this document, to the extent that such policies directly or indirectly affect employees because of their disabilities [or indeed other protected group characteristics: [eg. zero](eg. zero) tolerance of absenteeism, and religious observance] both the adoption of the policy and the consequences flowing from a breach must comply with the Meiorin principles (see below) . (with the necessary contextual changes) to services provided to the public, etc. Such testing has been seen, for example, in the context of schools, sports including school athletics, certain corrections and health care contexts, etc. The Manitoba Human Rights Code The Code prohibits unreasonable discrimination based on certain prohibited characteristics, primarily enumerated in s.9 (2) . It does this by prohibiting practices, policies, rules, standards etc. which directly or indirectly discriminate with respect to any activity to which The Code applies, unless there is bona fide and reasonable justification, as described in Meiorin2 and Grismer3. The case law is clear that dependence or a perceived dependence on drugs or alcohol is a ‘disability’ within the meaning of The Code. This does not mean any employer must tolerate unacceptable work performance by an employee. However, it does mean that an employer must take reasonable steps to ascertain whether the behaviour is due to a dependency disability. If that is the case, repercussions such as denial or termination of employment because of the disability (including drug or alcohol dependence) or a perceived disability are unlawful unless the employer (service provider, etc. ) can establish that the employer’s standard is reasonably necessary and that it has taken reasonable steps to accommodate the individual. How Does Drug and Alcohol Testing Potentially Violate The Code? Drug and alcohol testing is considered on its face to violate The Code ,

FAQs

What is the purpose of Policy A-8 on drug and alcohol testing?

The policy is intended to assist in understanding and applying the Human Rights Code. Where conflict exists, the Code prevails.

Why does drug and alcohol testing raise human rights concerns under the Code?

Because testing and automatic or severe consequences for positive results can discriminate against employees with drug or alcohol dependency disabilities, unless justified through human rights principles.

What must an employer demonstrate to justify discriminatory effects of a testing practice?

The employer must show the practice is adopted for a purpose rationally connected to job performance, that it is adopted honestly and in good faith, and that it is reasonably necessary, including efforts to accommodate affected individuals up to undue hardship.

Sep 18, 2026

Upload by Aditya