Canadian Safety Reporter - sample

2 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 CSR | September 2016 | News ilton, Niagara, Haldimand and Brant areas of southern Ontario. Hired on Nov. 20, 2012, Carr provided home services such as wound care, palliative care, infu- sion care and dialysis care. In early February 2016, Carr's supervisor met with him twice to discuss a complaint from one of Carr's patients. The supervisor asked Carr to engage in a "prac- tice reflection" process — a pro- cess recommended by the Col- lege of Nurses in which a nurse analyzes and learns about her own professional actions in or- der to improve. The college notes in its professional standards for nurses that "practice reflection is a professional expectation and legislated requirement." Carr was expected to analyze how he could have managed his visit differently to avoid the patient's displeasure as much as possible, even if the patient was difficult. Carr said he believed he was being blamed unfairly and the patient had anxiety that played a role in the complaint. However, he agreed that he made a mis- take with the patient's medica- tion. The supervisor asked Carr to provide a "practice reflection" essay to explain what went wrong and how it could have gone bet- ter, but Carr was agitated and refused to accept responsibility. A couple of weeks later, Carr submitted a 500-word essay to the supervisor. The supervi- sor wasn't happy with it as Carr seemed to only blame the patient for the problems during the visit. Carr also complained that he couldn't carry certain supplies in his car when visiting patients. The supervisor was alarmed as she didn't see any indication that Carr had analyzed why the visit went wrong and what he could have done differently. As far as she was concerned, it wasn't right to only blame the patient and the essay didn't meet the require- ments of "practice reflection." Supervisor had had enough The supervisor considered other issues she had been having with Carr, including confrontations over scheduling and on-call is- sues, and being difficult to work with. She ultimately decided Carr's employment should be terminated and emailed St. Eliz- abeth's HR manager, director of nursing and regional director on March 1, saying they should act quickly before another com- plaint arose. However, the supervisor real- ized she couldn't arrange cover- age for Carr's schedule on short notice and the termination had to be approved by St. Elizabeth's vice-president, operations, so several days passed. On March 7, Carr emailed the supervisor expressing con- cern over bedbugs at a patient's home he was scheduled to visit. The following morning, Carr emailed the supervisor again saying he would need a full body suit for the visit. A suit wasn't available but Carr was informed they had gowns, boots, and gloves. Suits were for "extreme" bedbug situations" he was told. Carr responded that the situation at the patient's home seemed extreme to him. Shortly thereafter, Carr emailed St. Elizabeth's health and safety consultant to say that if he wasn't provided with a full suit, he would "probably be exer- cising a work refusal" as nothing had been done about the bed- bugs, though they had known about the issue "for weeks." Sixteen minutes after Carr's email to the health and safe- ty consultant, his supervisor emailed him to set up a meeting the following day, March 9. At the meeting, Carr's employment was terminated. Employee felt concerns over bedbugs were ignored Carr filed a complaint, claiming his employment was terminated as a reprisal for his raising safety concerns over the bedbugs at a patient's house and contem- plating a work refusal under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. He argued St. Elizabeth's showed reluctance to address the bedbugs issue and when he pushed by considering a work refusal, his termination happened quickly. The board noted that Carr didn't actually engage in work refusal. Instead, he sent an email to St. Elizabeth's health and safe- ty consultant that suggested he "probably" would do so since the organization couldn't provide the full body suit that he request- ed. Though this could have been perceived by St. Elizabeth's as a threat to refuse work — which would also be protected under the act — it was important to note that Carr informed only the health and safety consul- tant. He didn't send the email to his supervisor and there was no evidence the supervisor knew about Carr's suggestion of a work refusal, said the board. The board found the supervi- sor was not aware of Carr's threat of a work refusal and, in fact, the evidence indicated she had made the termination decision a week before Carr raised any issues regarding bedbugs at a patient's home. In addition, there was no indication she knew about the work refusal suggestion when she met with Carr for the termi- nation meeting, said the board. "The fact is St. Elizabeth has ...met its onus under (the act) by proving that the decision to terminate Carr was effectively made on March 1 and 2, 2016, some six or seven days prior to the bed bug issue being raised by Carr with (the supervisor) and others," said the board. "The fact that the final authority needed from (the vice-president, op- erations) to terminate Carr was only provided on either March 7 or 8, 2016, does not alter the conclusion that St. Elizabeth has proven that its reasons for terminating Carr had nothing to do with, nor was it tainted by, the issue of bedbugs, but rather had everything to do with a history of varying confrontations with his supervisor, leading to a deterio- rating relationship." The board dismissed Carr's complaint, finding St. Elizabeth's terminated his employment for reasons other than his safety con- cerns and potential work refusal. For more information see: • Carr v. Saint Elizabeth Health Care NHHB, 2016 CarswellOnt 11400 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.). Dismissal < pg. 1 Nurse said he would 'probably' refuse to work Credit: Shutterstock/Joseph Dilag

• Cover