Canadian Employment Law Today

Employee assaults co-worker, gets $25,000 and reinstatement Employer failed to consider evidence of medical condition that may have played a role in violent incident in the workplace BY JEFFREY R. SMITH A federal government department should have accommodated an employee with medical issues rather than firing him for com - mitting a violent act in the workplace, the Canada Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board has ruled. Naim Rahmani was hired by Transport Canada in 2003 as a senior engineer in the Standards Branch, National Aircraft Certi - fication, in that branch's Electronic Equip- ment Design Assurance Section. He worked with clients looking to have their airplanes accredited so they could be authorized for use in Canada, examining the computer components of various elements of air - planes including the engines, fuselage, and flight controls. Rahmani had a colleague, Patrick Des- biens, who started working with Trans- port Canada around the same time as him. Desbiens initially had a classification one level higher than Rahmani, but a couple of years later Rahmani advanced to that level. ough they had identical duties and the same manager, the two men worked on dif - ferent projects. Over time, Rahmani's relationship with some of his co-workers became strained, particularly with Desbiens. In 2008, Rah - mani criticized Desbiens for incompetence, a lighter workload, and favouritism. He also claimed his co-workers didn't work as hard as he did and his criticisms were only profes - sional, not personal. As things deteriorated, Rahmani began looking for a way to leave his section. He also requested a leave without pay for one or two years, but his manager refused due to the section's operational needs. From 2009 to 2012, Rahmani's workplace relationships continued to worsen to the point where he sometimes had outbursts. He took sick leave several times and provided medical certificates. He also took parental leave for eight months in 2010. Despite his issues with colleagues, Rah - mani had good relationships with clients and employees in other sections, receiving congratulations for team dedication on vari- ous projects. In early 2012, Rhamani applied for an avionics position and was refused, which he felt was unfair because he believed he was the better candidate. He was unhappy and wanted to leave the section and took a three-week sick leave in January supported by a medical certificate. Worker's frustration boils over Rahmani returned to work from his sick leave on Feb. 10 to find that his perceived workplace nemesis, Desbiens, had been ap- pointed manager of his team. Not surpris- ingly, Rahmani felt this sealed his fate in the section and he wouldn't be able to leave for another opportunity. A few minutes after Rahmani read the email announcing Desbien's appointment, Desbien came into Rahmani's office to check his working hours, as he had received a re - quest for travel authorization for Rahmani that included overtime pay. Rahmani per- ceived this as an attack against him and felt Desbiens was rubbing it in as soon as he could, so he reacted negatively. Desbiens left Rahmani's office and went to see the chief of engineering, but the chief was absent. Rahmani then decided he should clear things up with Desbiens, so he went to the latter's office. According to Desbiens, he was at his desk with his back to the door when he felt Rah - mani behind him before hearing him speak while standing above him. He said he reflex- ively got up and turned to face Rahmani, who then insulted him. He claimed he told Rahmani to leave his office and Rahmani re- sponded by striking him on the left side of his face, knocking his glasses off. Desbiens picked up his glasses and left his office, with Rahmani following him. He said he was afraid of Rahmani and rain down the stairs to the ground floor to ask for help from the security station, with Rahmani following along. Rahmani claimed that when he entered the office, Desbiens immediately stood up and he pushed him in a defensive move. He later acknowledged that he may have pushed hard because Desbiens' cheek was red for a while afterwards, but he said he had no in - tention of hitting Desbiens. He said he fol- lowed Desbiens out of the office because he didn't want Desbiens to exaggerate what had happened. Transport Canada conducted an investi - gation into the incident. Other employees reported hearing the slap and loud voices as well as seeing a red mark on Desbiens' face. e security officers said Desbiens was in a serious emotional state when he approached them. All indicators pointed to an aggres - sive violent act by Rahmani, and Rahmani's explanation that he acted defensively didn't stand up since all he had to do if he felt threatened was to leave the office, since he was closer to the door with no obstacles. Rahmani's access card to the building was revoked and he was placed on telework. He worked from home on several projects and reported directly to the chief of engineering while the investigation continued. In July 2012, Rahmani presented a medical certifi - cate requesting two months sick leave, but his sick leave credits were almost used up so paid sick leave was refused. Rahmani then requested paid leave from his accumulated annual leave, but this was also refused, be - cause Transport Canada didn't allow regular leave to be used as sick leave. e employer was beginning to believe Rahmani used sick leave as blackmail, as he often took it when he didn't get what he wanted. Transport Canada completed the investi - gation and determined Rahmani was guilty of workplace violence. Before it decided on discipline, management met with Rahmani to get his point of view. Rahmani initially said at a June 29 meeting that his act was WORKPLACE VIOLENCE is a serious concern for employers. It gets the attention of not only employees, but also authorities and sometimes the general public. Employers have an obligation to limit the potential for violent incidents in the workplace as much as possible, and this includes severe discipline for employees guilty of it. While dismissal can often be the solution, employers must keep in mind that — like any misconduct — any evidence pointing to a potential medical issue related to the misconduct — and potential need for accommodation — should be heeded. BACKGROUND 4 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 CASE IN POINT: ACCOMMODATION

• Cover