Oil rig worker’s possession of marijuana not a violation of drug policy since he forgot it was in his pocket
An oil rig worker did not violate his employer’s drug and alcohol policy on drug possession because he forgot there was marijuana in his jeans and didn’t knowingly bring it to work, the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court has ruled.
Michael Noseworthy worked for Magna Services Limited, an oil well equipment and supplies company based in St. John’s, N.L. He worked on an on-call basis and his job involved travelling to offshore installations upon which Magna provided its products and services.
Because the working environment on offshore oil rigs was hazardous, Magna — like other companies in the industry — prohibits illegal drugs or alcohol in offshore locations. It has a zero-tolerance drug and alcohol policy that states “the use, possession, or distribution of an illegal drug, or drug paraphernalia by an employee while on company facility or while performing company business is strictly prohibited.” This included “any detectable amount” of drugs.
The policy also stated that Magna Services would “invoke immediate disciplinary action leading up to and including dismissal” if any employee was found to have violated the policy.
Worker didn’t make it through security
Noseworthy was called into work at an offshore oil rig on Jan. 27, 2014. He went to a helicopter facility, where he was to be flown to the oil rig. However, when he passed through the security scanner, a small piece of aluminum foil was detected in a pocket in his jeans. The piece was smaller than a pencil eraser and had a piece of lint attached to it.
Noseworthy took the piece of foil out of his pocket and asked the security officer scanning him to dispose of it in the garbage. He instead tossed it into the garbage himself, but the security officer retrieved it. The officer examined the piece of foil and found it contained a small quantity of marijuana. Noseworthy claimed he didn’t know what was in the piece of foil, but security called the police. The police declined to press charges of possession because it was such a small amount of marijuana.
Noseworthy was required to provide a urine sample, which initially tested negative but a second test found a small amount of the drug in his system.
Magna Services then directed Noseworthy to undergo a dependency assessment, which found no medical dependency issues two weeks later.
The company investigated the circumstances and determined that Noseworthy was in possession of an illegal drug and when he arrived at the helicopter facility he was on company business and in the process of travelling to an offshore oil rig. In addition, it felt he tried to get rid of it in the garbage when it was discovered. This was a violation of the drug and alcohol policy, so the company terminated Noseworthy’s employment on March 26, 2014.
The union grieved Noseworthy’s termination, as Noseworthy said he hadn’t known there was marijuana in his pocket when he reported for work at the helicopter facility. He claimed he had no idea how the marijuana got into his pocket, but thought it might have been from a hunting expedition a short time earlier and he had just forgotten to take it out of his pocket.
An arbitrator found that Noseworthy probably was aware that he had the marijuana in the past as he didn’t seem surprised it was there, and it was likely he had simply forgotten it was in his pocket. So while he didn’t knowingly bring the marijuana to work, he was still “in possession” of it, which was a violation of the policy. The grievance was upheld.
The union appealed to the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court.
Intent is important
The court agreed that Noseworthy was in possession of marijuana while on company business. However, it found the mental element to establish possession in contravention of Magna Services’ policy was missing.
The court — as did the arbitrator previously — accepted Noseworthy’s explanation that he likely had placed the marijuana in his jeans pocket some time earlier and then forgot it was there when he wore the jeans to work. However, unlike the arbitrator, the court didn’t think Noseworthy’s previous actions violated the policy. Though Noseworthy had actual physical possession of marijuana while engaged in company business, he didn’t know he had physical possession until he was scanned. Therefore, the intent wasn’t there, said the court.
The court determined that the arbitrator’s — and Magna Services’ — decision that Noseworthy violated the drug and alcohol policy despite not being aware he had a small amount of marijuana on him was unreasonable. While the arbitrator was free to accept or reject Noseworthy’s claim that he knew he had marijuana in his pocket, the fact that he accepted it meant he should have found in favour of him, said the court in upholding the grievance.
The court noted that had it been determined Noseworthy did knowingly violate Magna Services’ drug and alcohol policy, dismissal would have been a reasonable amount of discipline. Even though dismissal wasn’t mandatory, the company had a “strong duty” to employees and others on the facility to reduce the risk of dangerous substances. Dismissal was an effective way to deter others from violating the policy, said the court.
For more information see:
