Canadian Employment Law Today - sample

sor that his medical issues were not work- related, the medications prescribed by his dentist were "an anti-inflammatory and an antibiotic" and he didn't feel he could have worked in any capacity from May 16 to 23. However, he had not sought medi- cal help during his absence for the smoke symptoms he had previously mentioned. It was decided that Zwozda's absence wasn't medically supported and his applica- tion for short-term disability benefits was denied. Suncor's investigation into Zwozda's absence determined that the discrepancy between his initial call-in and his STD appli - cation — and going back and forth between smoke inhalation symptoms and his dental issues — indicated dishonesty and an abuse of sick leave under the IDM program. It also found that his report of his dental issues was an attempt to make his health situation more serious — he didn't tell his supervisor the nature of his x-rays and that they had been done a week earlier, and his dentist appointment during his absence was a pre- scheduled one. In addition, Suncor would have been able to accommodate his use of prescription drugs if he had supplied infor - mation about them. e company terminat- ed Zwozda's employment for "an irreparable breach of the essential trust" on July 20. e arbitrator found that on May 16, Zwozda believed he was calling in on the sick line and said as much in his text to the shift C supervisor. He may not have specifically said he was calling in sick but because it was the sick line, it wasn't necessary. e agent on the line didn't ask him for the reason for his absence, because once he mentioned the wildfire, the agent followed the new reporting for absences due to the fires. is led to the absence report indicating the fire as the rea - son for Zwozda's absence, said the arbitrator. e arbitrator noted that none of the supervisors or management followed up with Zwozda during his absence from May 16 to 23 and there was no further request for him to come into work after his initial call-in — which didn't make sense if he was considered absent without a reason. ere was no evidence Zwozda was trying to con - vince Suncor that he was too sick to return to work that week. Instead, the reasonable conclusion from the lack of follow-up was that Suncor didn't expect him to return that week and the sick line agent gave him the impression his sick leave request would be for more than one day, said the arbitrator. e arbitrator determined that Zwozda didn't abuse the IDM program and properly followed procedure for calling in on May 16. e arbitrator also found that he didn't fraudulently apply for STD benefits — he felt unwell on May 16 and wasn't lying about his dental issues and medication. He didn't provide enough information to be approved for benefits, but it wasn't a false application, said the arbitrator. e arbitrator found no grounds for disci - plining Zwozda and ordered Suncor to rein- state him to his position with compensation for lost pay. For more information see: • Suncor Energy Inc. and Unifor, Local 707-A (Zwozda), Re, 2018 CarswellAlta 474 (Alta. Arb.). Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2018 April 11, 2018 | Canadian Employment Law Today ABOUT THE AUTHOR JEFFREY R. SMITH Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. He can be reached at jeffrey.r.smith@thomsonreuters.com, or visit www.employmentlawtoday.com for more information. CREDIT: CHRISTIAN ROBERTS-OLSEN/SHUTTERSTOCK

• Cover