An arbitrator has upheld the decision to fire a heavy equipment operator at Porcupine Gold Mine in Timmins after he refused drug and alcohol testing following a serious safety incident in January. The incident took place Jan. 19, when two staff were assigned to a task at the mine known as “digging out the coarse ore stockpile (COS) to free up the apron feeder.” That procedure involves using loaders and other equipment to clear out packed or stuck material so that the ore can move freely along the conveyor. Before the work could begin, a “full lockout” was required, “to ensure conveyors and feeders and other gates and access to the area were properly restricted and deactivated.” Full lockout was required The worker had been trained on the lockout procedure, and both workers were aware the lockout had to be complied with before the work started. They assumed it had been completed and began working in the area. “They could have checked, by a two-way radio, whether they could safely enter the area, but did not do so,” the arbitrator wrote in his decision. “They entered the work area in question and worked for about three hours without incident.” But at 10 a.m., a safety officer noticed the lockout violation and told both workers to immediately leave the area. He later reported the violation to a supervisor “as he was required to do.” An investigation into the incident began immediately and the two workers were taken to the administration building, where they were asked to each write a statement on what had happened. Officials at the mine also told them it was a serious safety violation that meant sobriety testing would be required. ‘Alcohol and drug testing will be required’ “Alcohol and drug testing will be required after a serious or high potential incident as part of a preliminary investigation into the circumstances,” the mine’s policy manual said. While one of the workers provided the written statement and submitted to the test (which he failed), the person who was fired refused to agree to either. He insisted that “he did not accept that post-incident testing was called for, stating that there was no ‘probable cause’ for such testing, and declaring that he took pride in not putting himself or others at risk,” the decision said. A human resources officer arrived, and she told the employee that refusing the test was grounds for discipline. At some point, he told her “F—k the test and f—k the company!” The man was fired Jan. 28, with the United Steelworkers grieving the decision. In their testimony, officials for the company said they had a hard time understanding how two such experienced and skilled workers had failed to follow such an important safety procedure. That played a major role in seeking an impairment test “to rule out the possibility that impairment on the part of one or both of the employees had contributed to the violation.” Demand for test was ‘unprecedented’ “According to the employer’s report on the incident, which was admitted as evidence on consent, the lockout violation ‘resulted in workers being exposed to uncontrolled hazardous and energy sources while inside the COS area, and potential significant injury from active feeders conveying coarse ore,’” the decision said. But the local Steelworkers president testified that it was “unprecedented” for an employee to be told to submit to impairment testing for a safety violation. “In addition, several more serious safety violations had not led to any impairment testing, including one in November 2025 when an employee reversed a bulldozer into a supervisor’s pickup truck, thereby crushing it,” the decision said. The union also argued that the lockout procedure was complicated and wasn’t something most employees could do. “Errors were frequent in view of the complexity of the procedure and a lack of adequate training,” the union argued. Representatives for the company, however, argued that previous decisions upheld the right to demand sobriety tests because the work environment in mines is so potentially hazardous. Similar violations Companies are required by law to “take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker.” But the union argued that this was the first time a sobriety test had been demanded, “despite there having been many comparable (safety) violations.” Considering the worker had a clean record since he was hired in 2015, the union argued he should be reinstated with full compensation for lost wages and damages, “subject only to a 40-hour unpaid suspension.” However, the arbitrator ruled that, according to previous decisions, all the company had to do was establish it was a serious safety violation and that the workers were “involved in the violation, which was all that was needed to order testing.” While the union argued it was unfair to order testing when it wasn’t required in other safety violations, the arbitrator said that would be a bad precedent to set. “Carried to its logical conclusion, this objection by the union, if accepted, would preclude an employer from taking measures that were required in the interests of employee safety, if the employer had omitted doing so in a previous similar situation,” the decision said. And he also rejected the argument that dismissal was too extreme a punishment for someone with a clean record. “Employees who knew they were impaired, or suspected that they were, might calculate that they would have nothing to lose by refusing the test, and might well end up keeping their jobs, if the arbitrator seized of their grievance were inclined to reinstate them on grounds such as long, discipline-free employment,” the arbitrator wrote.
