Dealing with Off-Duty Driving Offences

While it’s easy to say that what an employee does on his or her time off is none of the employer’s business, this is not always true.  When an employee’s off-duty conduct has an impact on the employer’s operations or reputation, or interferes significantly with the employee’s ability to perform the job, the employer has a legitimate interest in addressing that behaviour.  As discussed in an earlier post on the Ghomeshi fiasco, employees can incur employment-related repercussions for actions they take in their personal capacity.

But what about driving infractions?  Can offences behind the wheel have employment ramifications?  What about an employee who suffers from alcoholism?  Can they rely on their disability to excuse charges under the Highway Traffic Act or the Criminal Code?  As seems to generally be the case in matters like this, the answer to these questions is “it depends”.

As the Court said in Pearce v. Foster et al. (a “master-servant” case from the late 19^th Century):

If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with the faithful discharge of his duty in the service, it is misconduct which justifies immediate dismissal. That misconduct, according to my view, need not be misconduct in the carrying on of the service of the business. It is sufficient if it is conduct which is prejudicial or is likely to be prejudicial to the interests or to the reputation of the master, and the master will be justified, not only if he discovers it at the time, but also if he discovers it afterwards, in dismissing that servant.

Of course, the determination of whether particular actions amount to cause for dismissal is a much less black-and-white affair than it was 130 years ago.  However, the principle is still observed:  an employee’s behaviour outside of work may have repercussions for the employment relationship (up to and including dismissal) where the behaviour is prejudicial to the employer’s interests.

Typically, whether or not off-duty driving offences or license suspensions (or other off-duty conduct) can be treated as ‘misconduct’ will turn on the nature and scope of the employee’s duties, the amount of notoriety their actions have attracted, the seriousness of the charges, the duration of the license restrictions or suspension, and the availability of other work or roles that don’t require driving. 

Before considering how to respond, an employer must make the necessary enquiries to determine what has occurred and how significant an event it is.  Obviously, the employee should be interviewed and any other available information gathered.  In some cases, this process may be hampered if the employee has received legal advice from a criminal lawyer and decides to exercise his or her ‘right to remain silent’.  At very least, however, the employer should require the employee to provide a copy of the information or ticket that was issued, and/or any documentation that may have been provided by the Ministry of Transportation (for example, where the licensing issue results from administrative reasons or an accumulation of lesser driving offences) to establish what charges and/or driving conditions apply.

Perhaps most crucial to the employer’s decision-making will be the nature of the employee’s role and responsibilities.  Is possession of a valid driver’s license a requirement of the position?  Is driving the primary or an essential duty of the employee’s job?  If not, how often is the employee expected to drive in the course of performing the job?  Does the employee operate an employer vehicle or his/her own car?  Does the employer maintain fleet insurance and what are its terms?  The more central that driving is to the employee’s duties, the more stringent the employer can be in its scrutiny of the circumstances of the loss of license.  However, it is also essential for the employer to understand the duration of the license suspension or conditions.  The shorter the suspension, the more carefully the employer should consider other options short of termination, such as an administrative suspension or reassignment to other duties (if they are available), to keep the individual employed until they regain the ability to drive.

The seriousness of the infraction and the employee’s explanation and display of remorse (if any) are also important factors to consider.  If the employee’s license was suspended administratively or for reasons unrelated to behaviour behind the wheel (for example, due to a failure to renew on time, failure to provide required medical information, or due to arrears in spousal or child support), the employer should consider options short of significant discipline or discharge.  On the other hand, conduct that suggests poor judgment or risk-taking (e.g., drunk driving, over 80 mg, or so-called ‘stunt-driving’), may attract more significant sanctions (and , therefore, less empathy).  Likewise, the attitude of the employee and any explanation they may provide must be weighed.  An absence of contrition or insight into the seriousness of the situation are poor indicators of likely good behaviour when driving for work in the future.  Of course, the employer must also consider the employee’s general history in terms of performance and behaviour – an employee with long, good service will obviously expect to receive more leniency than a short-term employee or one with a chequered past.

In some cases, the nature of the employer’s business and/or the notoriety of the employee’s behaviour may also be an aggravating factor.  Where charges against the individual have been reported in the media, the employer’s reputation may be at stake, particularly in a smaller community.  In some cases, the extreme safety sensitivity of the work may dictate that the employee be pulled off the road immediately (e.g., a truck driver who works for a company that hauls fuel oil or other dangerous goods on public roadways).  If there’s a risk that the employee’s behaviour may impact public confidence in the services provided by the employer (such as would be the case in policing), this will also be relevant to how seriously the misconduct is treated.

In any event, it cannot be assumed that the loss or suspension of an employee’s driver’s license will necessarily result in termination, even where driving is a significant component of their job.  As Arbitrator Owen Shime observed in one of the seminal arbitration cases on the subject (Re Bell Canada and C.W.C. (Shime), 24 L.A.C. (4th) 116):

An employee who loses his or her driving licence for violation of the Highway Traffic Act, [citation omitted], or a similar statute need not suffer a loss of employment, even where the employee is required to have a driving licence in order to perform his or her duties.  An employer is required to act reasonably and must balance its interests in maintaining production with the grievor’s interest in retaining his or her employment.  Also some care should be taken to ensure that the employee is not penalized twice for off-duty conduct but rather that there is a legitimate and significant employer interest that is being protected.  And finally, in the loss of licence cases there is a presumption that an employee should be suspended until other work is available or the employee’s driving privileges are restored.

Alternatively, a number of adjudicators have also held that an employer should consider the possibility of offering other, non-driving duties to an employee pending reinstatement of their driver’s license.  However, this option should only be considered in cases where the period of suspension or driving conditions is known and relatively short.  And of course, this alternative should never be considered where it would result in displacing another employee.  Only available work should be offered to accommodate the employee who has lost his/her driving privileges.

But what about the employee whose license is suspended due to charges related to impairment by alcohol or drugs, but who suffers from a known addiction?  What weight should the employer give the employee’s disability?  Is it an excuse or a mitigating factor?

In English v. Treasury Board (Solicitor GeneralCanada - Correctional Service), 2003 PSSRB 72, Board Member Guindon was dealing with the case of a correctional officer who was terminated for failing to disclose off-duty conduct (i.e., criminal charges related to drunk driving) that compromised his ability to perform his duties.  The officer had not told the employer that he had been convicted or that his license had been suspended for two (2) years.  In addition, he continued to operate employer vehicles (performing inmate transfers) after he lost his license.  Prior to the arbitration hearing, the employee expressed remorse and took steps to address his acknowledged problems with alcohol abuse.  The Board Member observed that the employee’s alcoholism had to be considered in assessing the appropriate penalty for his wrongful behaviour.  Citing an earlier decision, the Board Member wrote:

What emerges from these cases and the other material cited to the board is a recurring set of considerations and principles arbitrators take into account when dealing with discipline as it is applied to the alcohol and/or drug-addicted employee. These principles and considerations include the following:

1.            Alcoholism is recognized as an illness albeit one with an element of volition, that can attract varying levels of justifiable disciplinary response from the employer up to and including discharge;

2.            An adjudication board is entitled to look at the rehabilitative progress made by an employee subsequent to the employer's decision to discipline and is likely to modify that discipline if the employee can demonstrate that he has been successful in his recovery;

3.            The discipline imposed by an employer should only be modified in "exceptional circumstances" and those circumstances exist where an employee has shown genuine prospects for recovery and the restoration of a productive employer-employee relationship;

4.            The employer is entitled to insist that the employee perform the work for which he is paid and is not obliged to bear all the costs and consequences associated with an employee's inability to perform his duties as a result of his alcoholism;

5.            An adjudication board should consider the extent to which and the duration for which an employee is unable to perform his employment obligations;

6.            That where reinstatement occurs in substitution for discharge arbitrators are prepared to attach conditions to such reinstatement. Recognizing that alcoholism and drug addiction are not curable and can only be arrested by total abstinence, one such condition often attached to reinstatement is the requirement that the employee remain drug and alcohol-free.

In short, where it is established that an employee’s misconduct (in this case, off-duty driving offences) are related to a proven medical condition (i.e., alcoholism), the focus of the analysis will be on whether the employee acknowledges and seeks treatment for his/her problem, as well as the likelihood for recovery.  Evidence that the employee has sought treatment even after termination may be relevant.  However, the employer can in these cases impose conditions on the employee to ensure that the employee completes any rehabilitation program and complies with prescribed after-care (including abstinence from alcohol).

Where dismissal is not the appropriate course of action, an employer can consider withholding assignments that involve driving, transferring the employee to another position or other duties that don’t require a license, suspending the employee (where no other suitable work is available) or demoting the employee to a role where driving is not required.

While driving offences can have a significant impact in the workplace – hindering efficient operations or drawing unwanted scrutiny on an organization – employers need to be aware that not every loss of a driver’s license should attract the same penalty.  A careful, fact-specific assessment is required in each and every case.

Do you have questions how to deal with an employee who has lost their driving privileges?  Need guidance on whether or not to discipline for off-duty conduct?  Contact Lance Ceaser for expert advice.

Guidance on What an Employer Can Do When Accommodating a Disabled Employee

In dismissing a complaint of disability-related harassment and discrimination, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal recently made some helpful comments on an employer's authority to follow-up with an employee respecting their medical condition and any restrictions they may have.

In Croteau v. Canadian National Railway, the Complainant was a conductor on freight trains operated by CN when he was injured.  Following multiple accidents and injuries over a ten-year period, the Complainant had a negative interaction with a Risk Management Officer (regarding his request for benefit forms), and two workplace accidents that resulted in injuries.  CN conducted a reconstruction of one of the accidents (as part of its root-cause analysis), and investigated whether the Complainant was legitimately off work following the second accident, which included hiring a private investigator to conduct surveillance.  Over the course of the succeeding months and years, the Complainant developed certain mental health issues, including anxiety and depression.  He claimed that the employer had engaged in several incidents of harassment, and that it had also repeatedly failed over a period of years to accommodate his disabilities. The employer denied the allegations and brought a non-suit motion, which was successful in having the Tribunal dismiss two alleged incidents of harassment.  However, another nine allegations of harassment and failure to accommodate were the subject of full evidence before the Tribunal.

At the outset of its analysis, the Tribunal made a couple of important observations.  First, it stated that not every interaction that a disabled employee has with the employer which is subjectively objectionable will amount to "harassment".  At para. 43, the Tribunal wrote:

It is important to recognize when dealing with allegations of “disability harassment” that it denotes more than just being uncomfortable or offended in the sometimes difficult, sensitive discussions between management and employees. For example, an employer has the right to manage its employees and issues relevant to the operation of its business, such as making, monitoring and enforcing rules in the workplace. The key is to examine whether the conduct has violated the dignity of the employee (e.g., as a result of belittling or degrading treatment by the employer linked to the ground of disability) from an objective perspective such that it has created a hostile or poisoned work environment.

Secondly, although the duty to accommodate does have a procedural aspect to it, that doesn't mean that a complainant is entitled to a remedy for a deficiency in the process unless it leads to a substantive failure to provide reasonable accommodation.  (The Tribunal based its view in this regard on the decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Cruden et al., which was recently upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal, as discussed here.) 

The Tribunal then weighed the credibility of the various witnesses, including the Complainant (whose evidence was found to often be unreliable, due to his skewed perspective on events), and determined that none of the alleged incidents were proven or amounted to harassment or discrimination.  Most importantly, the Tribunal found:

• The Complainant may have found the RMO to be rude or overly assertive, but she did not harass the Complainant merely by asking whether his injury was personal or work-related;
• Investigating the reasons for the Complainant's absenteeism did not amount to harassment, even where the employee was cautioned about the possible consequences of continued high levels of absence;
• Asking the Complainant to recreate the circumstances of a work-related injury was a legitimate exercise, intended to avoid or reduce future incidents leading to injuries;
• Questioning the bona fides of an injury, on its own, does not amount to harassment, particularly where the employer has legitimate doubts about an employee's account of how the injury occurred.  Likewise, an employer has a right to inquire into the reason that an employee has a much higher than average incidence of work-related injuries (as was the case with this Complainant);
• Despite the fact that the federal Privacy Commissioner had taken issue with the employer's use of surveillance by a private investigator, the Tribunal found that the surveillance did not amount to harassment.  The employer had legitimate reasons to question the reason for the Complainant's extended absence without leave (including the submission of contradictory doctor's notes, and his failure to answer 58 calls from the employer), and the surveillance itself was conducted in a reasonable manner.
• Conducting a meeting with the Complainant to discuss his absence and the outcome of the surveillance (which captured the Complainant playing soccer and basketball, despite an alleged knee injury) was a necessary adjunct to the employer's investigation, and was not harassment, despite the meeting running "inordinately long";
• Rescinding approval for tuition reimbursement, due to the Complainant's injury record and period of AWOL, was a legitimate response (given CN had reason to believe the Complainant was not "promotable"), and did not constitute harassment;
• Although the employer may have relied on some inaccurate information in deciding to deny the tuition reimbursement, it did not amount to discrimination as there was no evidence it was related to a prohibited ground;
• Issuing a 'deferred' suspension, while the Complainant was off on STD and then LTD leave, did not amount to harassment, particularly where the Complainant never ended up serving the suspension.

The Tribunal then went on to consider the Complainant's claims that CN had failed to accommodate his disability over a number of years, and ultimately found that CN had accommodated the Complainant to the point of undue hardship.  The Tribunal was satisfied that the operation of a freight railway was a very safety-sensitive endeavour.  The Complainant's restrictions (related to his anxiety disorder) prevented him from working alone, being responsible for the safety of others, operating any moving equipment or working in a safety-sensitive/critical position, although over the course of years these limitations changed to include restrictions from certain shifts, as well.  The Complainant acknowledged that the employer had taken some measures to accommodate him between 2007 and 2013, but still claimed that the employer had not done enough (over the course of five (5) failed attempts to return him to work).  Ultimately, the employer was unable to find any positions for the Complainant within his restrictions, either in Sarnia (where he had worked) or elsewhere within the railway. The Tribunal found that the RTW efforts had foundered because the Complainant was unable to fully participate in the employer's efforts (due to his anxiety disorder and certain unreasonable demands he made) and was fixated on obtaining an apology and other redress (despite the employer not having done anything wrong) before he would cooperate in RTW efforts.  The Tribunal observed that there were aspects of the accommodation process that CN could improve, but that no accommodation, short of undue hardship was possible, and dismissed the complaint.

The decision reflects both the challenges of dealing with a claim for disability accommodation (which can be particularly onerous in the area of mental health issues), and the types of normal employer interactions with a disabled employee that will not amount to harassment or discrimination.  While employers often feel as if their "hands are tied", this case shows that an employer does still have the authority to manage the employment relationship, including reviewing the circumstances leading to an injury or absence, investigating and addressing employee conduct (such as when an employee is AWOL), and questioning the legitimacy of medical notes (where there is reason to do so).

Do you face challenges with accommodation?  Need assistance in navigating the RTW process?  Contact Lance Ceaser for expert advice.

 

Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Decision That There is No Independent Procedural Duty to Accommodate

In a brief decision that will hopefully clarify the law, the Federal Court of Appeal has found that there is no independent procedural duty to accommodate an employee, despite previous findings to that effect.  In the Court's opinion, once an employer establishes that it cannot accommodate an employee without incurring undue hardship, it is unreasonable for an adjudicator to award remedies to a claimant on the basis that the accommodation process was flawed or inadequate.
 
In Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court was considering an appeal from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the "CHRC") of a decision by the Federal Court, which had overturned the Commission's decision in the case of Bronwyn Cruden.  Ms. Cruden had been seeking overseas experience, so that she could qualify for the position of Development Officer with the Canadian International Development Agency ("CIDA"), and was successful in obtaining two temporary assignments to Afghanistan.  Ms. Cruden has Type 1 Diabetes, but CIDA did not initially require medical clearance for assignments to Afghanistan. There were no issues during Ms. Cruden's first stint in Afghanistan, but during her second assignment she experienced a hypoglycemic episode and was sent back to Canada.  Shortly thereafter, Health Canada introduced its Afghanistan Guidelines, which required medical assessments prior to posting to Afghanistan, and which precluded anyone with a chronic medical condition from serving in Afghanistan.  Although Ms. Cruden was a satisfactory employee, she was not offered any further assignments in Afghanistan because of her medical condition.
 
Ms. Cruden filed a complaint against CIDA and Health Canada, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.  In its decision, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that neither Health Canada nor CIDA had complied with their procedural duty to accommodate the complainant, as they had not explored accommodative options short of a complete prohibition.  However, the Tribunal also found that in the circumstances, there was nothing that CIDA could have done to accommodate Ms. Cruden in an assignment to Afghanistan without incurring undue hardship.  Despite this finding, the Tribunal awarded Ms. Cruden certain remedies for the violation of the procedural duty to accommodate.
 
On judicial review, the CHRC did not challenge the finding that CIDA could not accommodate the complainant without undue hardship, but supported the Tribunal's decision on the existence of an independent procedural duty.  The Federal Court found that the Canadian Human Rights Act (the "CHRA"), interpreted correctly, did not provide for a separate procedural duty to accommodate.  Once a respondent employer established that a workplace rule was a bona fide occupational requirement, on the basis of the test in British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union ("Meiorin"), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3, it was unreasonable for an adjudicator to find a procedural breach and provide any kind of remedy.  The essence of the analysis to be conducted is to determine whether substantive accommodation was or was not possible without undue hardship.  The wording of the CHRA did not provide for a separate analysis of the process by which accommodation was sought. In the result, the Federal Court held that the Tribunal's decision could not stand.
 
On appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Federal Court below. At paragraph 21, Justice Webb (writing for a unanimous Court) wrote:

I agree with the Federal Court Judge that the Supreme Court of Canada [in Meiorin] was not intending to create a separate procedural right to accommodate. There is simply one question for the purposes of the third step of the test: has the employer “demonstrated that it is impossible to accommodate individual employees sharing the characteristics of the claimant without imposing undue hardship upon the employer”? Once the employer has established this, then it has satisfied the requirements of the third step. Assuming that the first two steps are also satisfied (which they were in this case), it is a bona fide occupational requirement and it is not a discriminatory practice.

The Court acknowledged that a separate procedural duty to accommodate had been recognized in other decisions of lower courts, such as that of the Ontario Divisional Court in ADGA Group Consultants Inc. v. Lane, but held that the court in that case "did not examine the statutory basis for this procedural duty but rather it appears to have assumed its existence as it commenced its analysis of the procedural duty to accommodate" (para. 23).  Given that this decision, and those of other human rights tribunals, upholding the existence of a procedural duty were not grounded in an interpretation of the underlying legislation, they did not constitute authority for the proposition that there was such a free-standing duty.  Given that there was no dispute that CIDA could not accommodate Ms. Cruden in a posting to Afghanistan without undue hardship, the Tribunal should have dismissed the complaint against both CIDA and Health Canada, and no remedies were available to the complainant.
 
This decision, if it is followed and applied under other provincial human rights legislation (such as the Ontario Human Rights Code), should bring much needed clarity to an area of law that has grown muddied over the years.  While employers still must ensure that they take all reasonable steps to assess the availability of accommodation for employees, flaws in that process should not become more important than the question of whether accommodation is possible without undue hardship, no matter how flawed the search for accommodation may be.  Unless it can be established that the employer has discriminated (by imposing workplace rules that cannot be justified under the test in Meiorin), the procedural aspects of the duty to accommodate cannot give rise to a remedy.  It remains to be seen whether this decision will be appealed further and whether the Supreme Court of Canada will weigh in.
 
Do you have questions about the accommodation process?  Need guidance on the forms of accommodation that an employer may be required to provide?  Contact Lance Ceaser for expert legal advice.
 

 
 
 

Failure to Prove Cause Leaves Employer Responsible for LTD Payments to Dismissed Employee

When an employee is terminated without cause, the employer is obligated to continue all benefits to which the employee is entitled for the entirety of the reasonable notice period (unless some lesser entitlement is clearly spelled out in the contract of employment).  In a recent decision, where a teacher was dismissed, purportedly for cause, but became totally disabled during the reasonable notice period, the employer was found to not have had cause for termination and was ordered to pay the employee disability benefits to age 65, along with 12 months' pay in lieu of reasonable notice.

In Fernandes v. Peel Educational, the plaintiff was a teacher who had been employed by the private school for over ten years.  Although he had generally received good or excellent reviews during his teaching career, some concerns were identified in his end-of-year review following the 2007-08 school year.  Despite these issues, he continued working for the school the next year.  However, in March 2009, matters came to a head when the plaintiff submitted incomplete and inaccurate marks that were to be included on students' interim report cards.  The plaintiff advised the school that he was awaiting some work from students and that he would correct calculation errors.  Over two weeks later, the issues had still not been resolved, and the school continued to coach the teacher on the importance of submitting accurate marks for his class.  A couple of days later, the teacher submitted the marks and report cards, but the administration was suspicious because of the sudden completeness of what was turned in.  After some investigation, the school determined that the teacher had in fact inputted marks on student assignments that had not yet been completed.  The teacher was asked to attend a series of meetings with administration, during which he did not provide an explanation. However, he did ultimately confess to fabricating marks for some students. He was dismissed for cause, on the basis of "academic fraud".  Shortly thereafter, he was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder, and was deemed totally disabled by his doctor and psychiatrist.  By then, his long-term disability coverage had already been terminated.

After a trial, the Judge reviewed the competing evidence.  Although he concluded that the teacher had not been forthright with the school, and had actually lied in his evidence before the court, the Judge decided that the school had not established that the plaintiff's dishonesty was cause for summary dismissal.  Applying the 'contextual approach' dictated by the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in McKinley and BC Tel, the judge felt that the employer's claim of academic fraud was a "very dramatic way of describing a few students who were marked on presentations that they had not yet given", and did not amount to the kind of dishonesty which undermined the trust essential in the employment relationship.  Having found that the employer did not have cause for dismissal, the Judge went on to find that the teacher was entitled to 12 months' reasonable notice.  In addition, given that he would have been entitled to claim LTD benefits, due to a disability that arose during the notice period, his wrongful dismissal also made the employer liable for those LTD benefits that the teacher would have otherwise been eligible to receive.  Given the plaintiff's prognosis, the employer was responsible for all LTD payments he would have received until age 65 (when LTD coverage would cease under the terms of the plan). 

The decision in Fernandes may come as a surprise for a couple of reasons.  The Court's rejection of the employer's case for cause is concerning. If a teacher falsifying marks is not the kind of dishonest conduct that warrants dismissal, it is hard to imagine what behaviour would meet that standard.  That being said, the employer's investigation of the problem was found to be flawed, and the teacher had enjoyed a long, unblemished teaching career prior to the issue arising.  In that context, the decision is somewhat more understandable.  Even more concerning for employers, however, is the school's liability for LTD benefits for a period of approximately 9 years.  The decision is a reminder to employers of the dangers of alleging cause on the basis of a relatively slim record of misconduct (particularly in the case of a long-term employee), and the risks associated with not continuing benefits (or providing a cash equivalent) during the notice period.  Before doing so, it is sound practice to obtain legal advice.

Do you have questions about what amounts to cause for dismissal?  Need guidance on whether or not to continue benefits to a terminated employee?  Contact Lance Ceaser for expert assistance.

 

 

 

Employer's Knowledge of Disability Not Necessary to Establish Duty to Accommodate Disabled Employee - Or is it?

While the law tends to move incrementally, one decision at a time, slowly establishing "precedents" that later decisions will follow, the outcomes in some cases do not always appear to be consistent.  Not infrequently, a decision may appear to be an outlier, at least until one delves deeper to understand the basis on which the result differs from previous cases. 

In a post on this blog in August (here), I noted that an employer generally does not have an obligation to accommodate an employee until such time as the employee comes forward with a condition that requires accommodation.  In both Bish v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation and Huffman v. Mitchell Plastics, employers were not held responsible for failing to accommodate employees who failed to disclose their "disability". However, it should be noted that in both decisions, the underlying condition related to substance abuse.

In a recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, however, the Court found that an employer's knowledge of the employee's disability was not an essential element of establishing whether there was prima facie discrimination.  In Telecommunications Workers Union v Telus Communications Inc., the employee was employed as a representative in a call centre operated by Telus.  He was a member of a bargaining unit represented by the TWU.  At the time of hiring, the employee had completed a Diversity Form, indicating "yes" to the question of whether he was a "person with a disability".  At no time, however, did Telus follow up with the employee to learn the nature of his condition or whether he required any form of accommodation. The employee was ultimately hired, but began displaying performance issues within the probationary period. On the evidence presented at grievance arbitration, it appears that the employee may have told his supervisors that the performance issues were related to his "condition", but it was not clear whether he expressly mentioned having Asperger's Syndrome.  The grievor was terminated, and the Union took his discharge to arbitration.

At labour arbitration, the Arbitrator determined that the employee did have a disability and that the issues with his performance which resulted in his termination were connected to that disability.  However, the Arbitrator also found that the employee had not provided sufficient information to the employer to trigger the duty to accommodate (or even to compel the employer to look further into his condition), and that the position in question could not be modified in a way that would permit the grievor to meet the requirements of the job.  The Union sought judicial review, but the Arbitrator's decision was upheld by a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench.

On appeal, the Union argued that the Arbitrator and the lower court had both misapplied the test for prima facie discrimination, and had failed to properly consider the test for establishing a bona fide occupational requirement.  The Court of Appeal reviewed the test for a finding of adverse effect discrimination, and found that the employer's knowledge was not a necessary element of that test.  Provided there was a negative consequence for the claimant from an apparently neutral rule, and the employee's disability contributed to that adverse outcome, the claimant has made out adverse effect (or indirect) discrimination.  In the case at bar, the employee's disability was a contributing factor in his inability to meet the employer's performance standards, which led to his discharge, so he had clearly made out a case. 

However, the Court then went on to consider the test for demonstrating a bona fide occupational requirement as set out in PublicService Employee Relations Commission v British Columbia Government and ServiceEmployees’ Union (often cited as “Meiorin”), and found that the employer could not have accommodated the employee in his current or any other position, given the effects of his disability.  Accordingly, although the Court disagreed with the Arbitrator's finding that there was no prima facie discrimination, the Court upheld the ultimate decision to dismiss the grievance.

The Alberta Court of Appeal's finding that an employer need not have actual knowledge of an employee's disability before being obligated to accommodate the employee initially appears to be supported by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Moore v British Columbia (Education).  However, the Moore test for prima facie discrimination does not stand in isolation. One must still consider the test in Meiorin, and other earlier human rights decisions, such as Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud.  In the latter case, the SCC commented on the duty on a complainant, whether in a case of direct or adverse effect discrimination.  At p. 994, the Court stated:

The search for accommodation is a multi-party inquiry.  Along with the employer and the union, there is also a duty on the complainant to assist in securing an appropriate accommodation.  The inclusion of the complainant in the search for accommodation was recognized by this Court in O'Malley.  At page 555, McIntyre J. stated:

Where such reasonable steps, however, do not fully reach the desired end, the complainant, in the absence of some accommodating steps on his own part such as an acceptance in this case of part-time work, must either sacrifice his religious principles or his employment.

To facilitate the search for an accommodation, the complainant must do his or her part as well.  Concomitant with a search for reasonable accommodation is a duty to facilitate the search for such an accommodation.  Thus in determining whether the duty of accommodation has been fulfilled the conduct of the complainant must be considered.

Clearly, unless an employee explicitly draws the employer's attention to the need for accommodation (or even the fact of disability), there cannot be an obligation on the employer to take steps to accommodate the employee.  The employer's knowledge, therefore, is an element of the analysis (albeit not at the stage of establishing prima facie discrimination).

The result in the Telus case does line up with the outcomes in Bish and Huffman, but how the Court got there may have created unnecessary confusion in the law.  By suggesting that an employer's knowledge is not a necessary element of the discrimination and accommodation analysis, the Court may lead employers and HR professionals to believe that they need to ferret out any and all potential disability claims before they surface as human rights complaints.  The law does not go that far.  Employees still have an individual responsibility to be frank about the need for accommodation and to participate in the process.  That has been the law for over 20 years, and the decision in Telus doesn't change that.

Do you have questions about human rights issues or the scope of the employer's duty to accommodate?  Contact Lance Ceaser for expert advice and guidance.