Canadian Employment Law Today

March 15, 2017

Focuses on human resources law from a business perspective, featuring news and cases from the courts, in-depth articles on legal trends and insights from top employment lawyers across Canada.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 6 of 7

Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2017 morning. e company asked him to pro- vide a medical note about any impact his dis- ability could have on his safety during those hours, so Hall provided a note stating he was "safe to work in his shop on his own." Hall also submitted a letter stating he acknowl- edged the risks of working on his own. Also in May 2014, Hall was disciplined for not showing up to work. Mara was getting concerned about his work quality and inter- action with other employees, including hos- tility to criticism and direction. e volume of work in the door shop de- creased in September 2014 and Hall inquired about other opportunities in the store. Mara temporarily assigned him to the customer service desk, where he worked shifts for the next 10 months. By July 2015, Hall was feeling exhausted from working at the customer service desk while still putting in early hours in the door shop. is made his epilepsy worse, so he told the company he didn't want to work at the desk any longer. Mara complied with the request. Soon after, Hall decided to take the NAFS course at his own expense. In August 2015, Hall provided a doctor's note that said he needed to reduce his stress at work and he may require medical leave since his working conditions were triggering seizures. He considered stopping work at the customer service desk as a medical leave but wanted to continue door shop work. Mara decided to advertise for a new door hanger position with NAFS qualifications, as it was receiving customer complaints about the quality of Hall's work and staff complaints about his attitude. It also needed to make its prices more competitive. e company claimed it wanted to reduce Hall's workload and but there would still be inte- rior doors for him to hang. e new door hanger was hired in Sep- tember and Hall's workload decreased. A month later, he submitted a doctor's note advising he needed time off. Mara heard nothing further from Hall until it received a letter from a lawyer advising of a potential human rights complaint. Hall claimed that Mara had stopped scheduling work for him when he took medical leave from the cus- tomer service desk, resulting in constructive dismissal because of his accommodation needs due to his disability. Mara applied to have Hall's complaint dismissed, arguing there was no evidence it violated Hall's human rights. e tribunal found Mara kept Hall on af- ter the NAFS was implemented and chose to purchase the doors while he performed other work for three years until he learned the standard. is demonstrated the compa- ny felt NAFS knowledge wasn't essential for Hall to continue working, said the tribunal. When Mara did decide to hire a new door hanger with NAFS knowledge and gradually reduce Hall's workload, it came after Hall had taken the NAFS course and coincided with his request for a less stressful work en- vironment and the suggestion he may need a leave of absence, the tribunal pointed out. "e timing could support an inference that (Hall's) request for accommodation was a factor in the reduction of his workload," the tribunal said. e tribunal determined there was enough evidence supporting Hall's com- plaint that warranted a full hearing to deter- mine whether Mara discriminated against him on the basis of disability. See Hall v. Mara Lumber (Kelowna), 2017 CarswellBC 276 (B.C. Human Rights Trib.). Canadian Employment Law Today | 7 More Cases « from WORK REDUCTION on page 1 Concerns over quality of work and attitude STAY ON TOP OF THE LATEST TRENDS IN HR VISIT HRREPORTER.COM TODAY Featuring a blend of breaking news, in-depth analysis and opinion from industry experts, is a go-to resource for the human resources community.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Employment Law Today - March 15, 2017