Canadian Labour Reporter is the trusted source of information for labour relations professionals. Published weekly, it features news, details on collective agreements and arbitration summaries to help you stay on top of the changing landscape.
Issue link: https://digital.hrreporter.com/i/1318609
hours being the norm.
The worker was trained dur-
ing her first three days of work,
including shadowing another
front desk employee, perform-
ing front desk duties with a
training employee, and then the
training employee shadowing
her.
At the end of her third shift,
the worker advised the train-
ing employee that she wasn't
yet comfortable working on her
own, which she was scheduled
to do the next day. However,
she proceeded to work the shift,
which was on April 27.
During the shift, the worker
slipped and fell on a wet floor
in the hotel's kitchen. She could
barely walk afterwards, but she
finished the last hour of her shift
because there was no one to
cover for her.
The worker was granted
workers' compensation ben-
efits and was off work for three
weeks. She returned on May 17
with a functional abilities form
setting out restrictions such as
no extended standing, walking,
or lifting. She worked her full
shift, though it was painful.
The worker was scheduled to
work six eight-hour shifts over
an eight-day period from May
19 to 26, but she told the gen-
eral manager that she could only
work three shifts per week due
to her injuries. However, the
hotel was understaffed and the
worker ended up working all of
the shifts.
The worker worked five
more eight-hour shifts between
May 31 and June 9, experienc-
ing significant pain and lim-
ited mobility. On June 13, the
worker called in to advise that
she couldn't work that day or the
next because of continuing pain,
but she was told there was no
one to cover her shift the next
day. She reported for work on
June 14 and suffered from "ago-
nizing pain" as a result.
The worker received a work-
ers' compensation report indi-
cating physical restrictions and
a limit of four-hour shifts on
June 15. The hotel scheduled
her for a four-hour shift on June
18, but then scheduled her for a
full shift two days later.
On June 19, the training em-
ployee called to ask about a
booking error while the general
manager and owner listened
in. The worker denied knowing
about it, but the general man-
ager believed that the worker
was lying. About 30 minutes
later, the general manager called
the worker and said her June 20
shift was going to be covered by
someone else. When the worker
asked what it meant, she re-
plied, "This is not working out"
and said there were complaints
about her. The worker's employ-
ment was terminated.
Though the worker was pro-
bationary, the union grieved
the dismissal, arguing that the
worker's injury was a factor in
her dismissal, making it dis-
criminatory.
The arbitration board found
that the hotel had little interest
in accommodating the worker,
as it scheduled her for full shifts
after she was injured and had
restrictions. It terminated the
worker the day after the need for
an accommodation process was
confirmed in a "coordinated ef-
fort to establish, over the phone,
something akin to just cause or
a culminating incident," said the
board.
The board determined that
the hotel discriminated against
the worker and made no effort
to accommodate her disability.
The hotel was ordered to pay
the worker $20,000 for its "egre-
gious breach of [its] duty to ac-
commodate, which inflicted sig-
nificant emotional pain on the
[worker]."
Reference: Copper River Inn and UFCW, Local 175. Dana Randall — chair. Mike Maher for employer. Jane
Mulkewich, Avo Topjian for employee. Nov. 9, 2020. 2020 CarswellOnt 16822
on layoff or an unpaid leave of ab-
sence did not receive holiday pay.
For an employee receiving short-
term disability, long-term dis-
ability, or workers' compensation
benefits (WCB), "no additional
payment shall be due for a named
holiday which occurs during a pe-
riod" while the employee was re-
ceiving such benefits.
Irina Tarnavsky was a medi-
cal radiation technologist at the
Sturgeon Community Hospital in
St. Albert, Alta. She was injured at
work in March 2018 and received
WCB.
Tarnavsky was cleared to return
to work for four-hour shifts be-
ginning on Aug. 15 and six-hour
shifts on Aug. 27. A normal shift
was 7.75 hours, so initially AHS
paid for four hours with WCB
covering the rest. This changed
to AHS paying the worker for six
hours with benefits covering the
remaining 1.75 hours of her nor-
mal pay.
Tarnavsky worked her sched-
uled shift on Sept. 2 and then
worked a six-hour shift on Sept.
3, which was Labour Day, and was
paid time and one-half. The day
after, she took an approved vaca-
tion day.
However, the HSAA filed a
grievance arguing that in addi-
tion to the time and one-half pay
for working on Labour Day, Tar-
navsky should have received an-
other day off or one day's pay.
AHS disagreed, saying that Tar-
navsky was still receiving WCB
because she was only working
part-time as part of her graduated
return to work. As a result, she
was still in the period for which
she was to receive "no additional
payment" under the collective
agreement.
The arbitrator found that it was
clear that the intention of the par-
ties in the collective agreement
was to provide full-time employ-
ees with a paid day off for named
holidays. Though Tarnavsky
wasn't working full shifts as part of
her graduated return to work, she
was still a full-time employee, said
the arbitrator.
"The length of the shifts which
she was working is irrelevant to
her entitlement to named holiday
pay for Labour Day 2018," said the
arbitrator. "There is no provision
in the collective agreement that
converts the status of a full-time
employee on WCB working re-
duced hours in a return-to-work
program to a part-time employee."
The arbitrator also found that
the alternative options to getting
a named holiday off provided for
in the agreement were not an "ad-
ditional payment," but rather were
part of the holiday itself. Under
AHS's interpretation, an em-
ployee who returned to full-time
hours but in a lower-paid classifi-
cation and received top-up WCB
would never be entitled to a paid
day off for a named holiday, said
the arbitrator.
The arbitrator determined that
Tarnavsky was entitled to a paid
day off as she met the require-
ments in the collective agreement
— she worked the day before La-
bour Day, worked on Labour Day
for time and one-half, had an ap-
proved vacation day the day after,
and was a full-time employee.
AHS was ordered to provide Tar-
navsky with six paid hours off or
six hours' pay.
Reference: Alberta Health Services and HSA. D.P. Jones — arbitrator. Lynn Michelle Angotti for employer. Sean Hayes
for employee. Nov. 6, 2020. 2020 CarswellAlta 2205
Paid days not considered prohibited 'additional payments'
Hotel didn't assist with short shifts, physical restrictions