Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Vardy 12-10-02
IntheMatterofAnArbitration Between AlgonquinHealthServices (Hereinafterreferredtoas"theEmployer") And OntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion-Local366 (Hereinafterreferredtoas"theUnion") Regarding:GrievanceofLindyVardy BoardofArbitration: FelicityD.Briggs,Chair FortheEmployer:ChristopherWhite,Counsel TraceyBadger FortheUnion: BorisBohuslawsky,Counsel BarbaraBarry Thelitigationbetweenthesepartiesthatunfoldedasaresultofthe grievancebeforethisBoardwaslongandarduousforallconcerned.At onepointintheproceedingsitwassuggestedthattheprocesswasa longandwindingroad.Thatwasanaptdescription. ThegrievancedatedSeptember24,2003filedbyMs.LindyVardy, LaboratoryTechnologist,stated: IgrievethattheEmployerasrepresentedbyTracyBadgerhasrefusedtoacknowledgemyrequestandmyneedforaworkplace accommodationarisingfromthepoisonedworkenvironmentin theLaboratory.ThisiscontrarytothetermsoftheCollective Agreement(Article3)andtheprovisionsoftheOntarioHuman RightsCode. BywayofremedyMs.Vardyrequested: TheEmployeranditsrepresentativeTracyBadgerbeorderedby theBoardofArbitrationtodeclarethattheyhavefailedtoprovide mewithmyrightsandentitlementsassetoutintheCollective AgreementandtheOntarioHumanRightsCode.Further,the BoardorderstheEmployertoprovidemewithaworkplace accommodationconsistentwithmyneedsunderthetermsofthe OntarioHumanRightsCode,andthatIbecompensated retroactivelywithinterestforalllostwagesandbenefitsandany otherpenaltytheBoarddeemsappropriate. OriginallytherewerethreegrievancesfiledbyMs.Vardy.Twoalleged improperdenialofLongTermDisability.Allofthesegrievanceswere partofabundleofdisputesthatthepartiesaskedthisBoardtomediate. ItwasagreedthatIwouldbegivenpowerstomediateinaccordance withSection50oftheLabourRelationsActofOntario.Allofthe grievancesexceptthoseofMs,Vardywereresolved, 1 Following:themediationattemptstherewasahiatusofmorethantwo andahalfyears.WhenthematterreconvenedtheLTDgrievanceswere withdrawnandtheUnionproceededonlyontheabovegrievance.Itwas explainedthatduringtheinterimperiod,Ms.Vardyhadundertaken civilactionandthatthematterofLTDdenialhadbeenresolvedtoher satisfaction.Moreinthatregardfollows. Althoughthepartieswereinterestedinapossiblemethodoflitigating thismatterinanexpeditiousmanner,itwasultimately,albeit reluctantly,decidedthatthehearingshouldproceedinthetraditional fashionofhavingwitnessestestifyfullyunderoath, Uponreconvening,intheUnion'sopeningstatementitwasmadeclear thatthegrievorwasassertingthreespecificclaims.First,theHospital discriminatedagainstherbyitsfailuretoprovideareasonable accommodationwhenshesoughttoreturntoworkinthesummerof 2003.Second,theHospitaldiscriminatedagainstMs.Vardyonthebasis ofhergenderbyfailingtotakereasonablestepstostopapoisoned workenvironment.Finally,thegrievor'simmediatesupervisor,Mr. BryonPalmerdiscriminatedagainstherandheshouldbeheld personallyliableforthoseactions.Tobeclear,theUnionaskedthe BoardtoorderdamagesagainstMr.Palmerpersonallyintheamountof twentythousanddollarsasbothgeneraldamagesandformental anguish. 2 InitsopeningstatementtheHospitaltookthepositionthatithadmet itsobligationtoaccommodate.Furtheritwasassertedthatneitherthe Unionnorthegrievorassistedinanyefforttofindanappropriate accommodationforthegrievor.Theclaimofdiscriminationbecauseofa poisonedworkenvironmentwasalsospecificallydenied.Itwassaid thattheHospitalundertookaninvestigationatthetimeallegations weremadeanditwasdeterminedthatthecomplaintswere unsubstantiated. TheHospitalalsoraisedaconcernthatMr.Palmer,whohadnotbeen notifiedofthepositionthattheUnionwouldtakeasagainsthim personally,shouldbegivenanopportunitytoseekindependentlegal adviseandparticipateintheeventhedetermineditadvisable.Itwas alsotheHospital'sviewthattherequestedremedyagainstMr.Palmer hasbeenraisedfartoolateintheproceedingsandwasbeyondthe jurisdictionofthisBoard. Attheconclusionoftheseopeningstatementsitwasapparentthat there werefourmainareasofdisputeregardingtheproceedings.The firstwashowthematteritselfshouldproceed.Secondwastheextentof theissuesbeforethisBoard.Thethirdissuewasregardingdisclosureof variousdocumentsinthepossessionoftheUnionand/orthegrievor. Finally,theissueofanyclaimagainstMr.Palmer. Itwasdecidedthatthemattershouldadjourntoafuturedaytoallow fullsubmissionsregardingthematterofwhetherthisBoardhasthe jurisdictiontoawardMr.Palmertopersonallypaydamagestothe grievorinthismatter. Whenthehearingreconvenedafewmonthslater,thisissuewasargued fullybytheparties.AdditionallyMr.Palmerhadretainedcounselto representhimandsubmissionsweremadeonhisbehalf.Inadecision datedOctober13,2007,itwasstatedatpage20: Irrespectiveofmyviewastothecorrectnessofthatdecision,in myviewitdoesnotassisttheUnioninthecaseathand.While1 acceptthatIamchargedwiththestatutorydutytoprovideafinal andbindingsettlementofalldifferencesarisingoutofthe CollectiveAgreement,Icannotfindthatthisdutybestowsupon methejurisdictiontoaddMr.Palmerasapartyortomakea findingthatheispersonallyliablefordamages.Further,asnoted inRe6iorno,Icanfulfillmyobligationtoprovidefinaland bindingsettlementofallofthedifferencesarisingoutofthe CollectiveAgreementwithoutgrantingtheUnion'srequesttoadd Mr.Palmerasaparty.If,attheendofthislitigationIdetermine thatMr.PalmersexuallyharassedthegrievorIwillmakefindings andordersthatprovidetheappropriateremedy.Whilethat remedywillnotbeagainstMr.Palmer,itwill,nevertheless,be real. Itcontinuedatpage23: Section48(12)(j)statesthatIhavethepowerto"interpretand applyhumanrightsandotheremployment-relatedstatutes, despiteanyconflictbetweenthosestatutesandthetermsofthe collectiveagreement."TheUnion'srequestinthisproceeding would,ineffect,havemefindthatbecauseIhavebeengiventhe statutorypowertointerpretandapplytheHumanRightsCode,my scopeofjurisdictionhasexpandedtoencompassMr.Palmer.I thinknot.Suchanextensionofmyjurisdictionwouldhavetohe clearlystatedintheLabourRelationsActorelsewhereifthatwere thecase.InmyviewIcannotextendmyjurisdictioninferentially, assuggestedbytheUnion. GivenmyfindingswithrespecttojurisdictionIdonothaveto addresstheissueofwhethertheUnion'srequestconstitutesan expansionofthegrievanceorisoutoftime.Forthosereasons,the Union'srequestisdenied. Onthenexthearingdaythegrievorbeganhertestimony.Ms,Vardy becameaMedicalLaboratoryTechnologistin1982,Shecompleteda BachelorofSciencedegreein2001,Shebeganheremploymentwiththe Hospitalin1982asaparttimeGeneralDutyTechnologist(Registered Technologistor"RT")workingintheCORElabaswellastheBlood Bank.Inapproximately1983shebecamefulltime. AsanRTsheperformedphlebotomies(thedrawingofblood).Shealso performedvarioustestsandanalyses,inthechemistry,hematology, bacteriologyandimmunologyareas.Thesetestsareperformedutilizing variousautomatedandmanualtechniques.Theresultsaredetermined, verifiedandthenreportedtothevariouspatientdepartments.AsanRT, thegrievorworkedallthreeshiftsandwasavailableforoncallduty. InthisdecisiontheBoardhassetoutmuchmedicalinformation regardingthegrievor'scondition,ThisBoardhasattemptedtoprovide sufficientinformationtoallowforanunderstandingofthemedical issuesthatarethebackdropofthislitigationwithoutrevealingmore thanisnecessary.Thistaskprovedtobeadifficultbalance, AccordingtoMs.Vardy,shebegantoexperience"mildsymptomsof unwellness"asearlyas1990.Shenoticedstiffnessandabdominalpain, Duringtheperiodfrom1998totheendof2001thesymptoms escalated,Shetestifiedthatshehadsuchsignificantboutsofabdominal painthatshehaslostconsciousness.Shealsohadbackpainthat radiatedintoherhipsandlegs.Severeheadacheswerenotuncommon. InMarchof998shewastakentothehospitalbecauseherpaincaused hertofaint,Duringthisperiodshecontinuedtoworkthoughshewas takingsomedaysoff,Shefoundherselffatiguedatworkandwould occasionallynapduringherbreakorlunchperiods.Otherthanhervisit tothehospitalshewasnothavingongoingmedicaltreatmentinthis regard. InMarchof2002thegrievorwenttoanewfamilyphysicianthat performedavarietyofteststoascertainthecauseofherongoing abdominalpainwithnoabnormalfindings.Shethenunderwenta colonoscopyandafterthatprocedureherabdominalsymptoms escalatedinseverityandwereaccompaniedbyheadachesandgeneral malaise.Shebeganexperiencingarapidheartratefromtimetotime andshetestifiedthatshethoughtshewasgoingtodie,Walkingwas difficultattimesandsleepwaselusive, OverthenextnumberofmonthssheunderwentaCTscan,anMRI,a laparoscope,variousandnumerousbloodtestsandultrasounds.She sawavarietyofphysiciansandtheprovisionaldiagnosesatthattime wasirritablebowelsyndrome,chronicfatiguesyndrome,jobrelated stress,posttraumaticstresssyndromeandfibromyalgia. ShestoppedworkinginMarchof2002.DuringthistimeshesawDr. MalcolmWilsonandinaconsultationnotedatedApril3,2002,he stated: Herchiefcomplaintsarethoseoflethargyandfatigue.Sheseems tohavebeeningoodhealthuntilahysterectomyin1996for uterinefibroids.Untilthenshehadbeenonanoralcontraceptive whichwasstoppedafterwardsandshehasnoticedatendency sincetointermittentrightlowerquadrantabdominaldiscomfort. Igettheimpressionhersymptomsflaredafewmonthsagowith somenewleftlowerquadrantdiscomfortintermittentinnature aswellasachangeinherbowelhabitwithincreasedfrequencyof stoolunusualforher,Shedoesnothavediarrhea.Shealso describessomelowerbackdiscomfortwithpainsradiatingdown thefrontofboththighstoherkneesreminiscentofmenstrual cramping.Herweighthasbeensteadythoughandtherehasbeen nobleedingoranyotherworrisomesymptoms.Shedoes volunteerthatshehasbeenpronetoUTI'sintermittentlyandthat occasionallyshewillfeelflushedandexperiencesweatingsuch thatsheiswonderingifshemightbeperimenopausal.Shehas alsoexperiencedmomentarychestpainsatypicalinnatureaswell asatendencytofeellightheadedonstandingandononeortwo occasionsshehasactuallypassedoutwithabdominalpain.Sheis anon-smokeranddrinksalcoholjustsocially.Ordinarilysheis quitehealthconscience(sic)anduntilrecentlyhasexercised regularly,Latelyhowevershehasbeenoffworkwiththese symptomsthepastcoupleofweekssincehercolonoscopyby DavidAllenMarch18th.Ihavenotedsheisallergictosulpha drugs. Inoticedshesighedfrequentlyduringtheinterview,She mentionedshehadseenPamMcDermottanumberoftimesover thepastcoupleofyearsandexpressedafewdepressive symptoms.Sheseemsquiteunhappyatwork,indeedshehasbeen pursuingherBSc.inmedicaltechnologythelastfewyearsasa possible"ticketout".Sheseemstohaveagenerallynegative outlookandmakesreferenceto"tryinghardtobehappy"and "notenjoyingthisplanet".Shealsoseemssomewhatambivalent regardingherpresentrelationshipofabout10yearsandwonders somehowaboutchangingherlifeforthebetter. Myinitialimpressionisthatthesesymptomsarefunctionalwith featuresofdepression.Takenbythemselvesherabdominal symptomsareinkeepingwithanirritablebowellikesyndrome followinghysterectomyandonemightalsoquestionconditions suchasendometriosis.Iunderstandshehashadapelvic ultrasoundalthoughIdonothavetheresultsbutsuspectthey werenormal.Idonotknowiralaparoscopywouldbewarranted. SomethinglikeAddison'sdiseasecouldalsoaccountforpostural light-headedness,fatigue,andabdominalsymptomology.Iwillset upaCortrosynStimulationTesttobesafe.ApparentlyherTSH wasminimallyelevatedalthoughIdonothavetheresult immediatelyavailable.Idonotthinksheishypothyroidclinically althoughatrialonathyroidreplacementcouldbeofferedbutI willrecheckthisalongwithherFreeT4anditwouldnotbe unreasonablytocheckherestrogenlevels,FSHandLH. SomehowIfeelalloftheabovearelikelytobeunrewarding howeverandculpritmaybeherunhappinessatwork.Ihave suggestedshemakeareturnappointmenttoseeyouanddiscuss furtherandperhapsPareshouldbeinvolvedforanotheropinion. Dr.WilsonwroteanothernoteonMay3,2002whichsaid,inpart: IspokewithLindythisafternoonintheRecoveryRoomaftershe wasrecoveringfromheranestheticforlaparoscopybyDaveAllan. Davidinformedmethatthelaparoscopywasbasicallynormal whichisnotsurprising.However,Ididhaveachancetotalkwith BarbandMichelle,twoofherfriendsandcoworkersinthelab regardingherproblemsthelast4years,aswellashercommon lawspouse]ohnallofwhomareconcernedabouther. Itseemsthattheseepisodesofrightlowerquadrantand/orpelvic painhavedefinitelybeenbotheringherintermittentlyforthepast fewyearssinceherhysterectomyandherstoppingtheoral contraceptive.Imighthaveassumedthatwithdepressionher painswouldhavebeenmorechronicinnatureandnotepisodic andcramping.ThelatterismoresuggestiveofIsuppose physiologicalovariancystsevidentonpelvicultrasoundinthepastand/oranintermittentbowelproblemgiventhefacther investigationstodatehavebeennegative. OnthesamedayDr.Wilsonwroteanoteaddressedtothegrievor's supervisor,Mr.Palmerwhichsaid: This42year-oldwomanwasoriginallyseenbymyselfin consultationApril3rathisyearregardinganumberofmedical problems. Sheiscurrentlyundergoingaseriesofmedicalinvestigations arrangedbymyselfandDr.Allanincludingmostrecentlya laparoscopyMay3ra. Assheiscontinuingtoremainsymptomaticandrequiresfurther investigationsyetincludingCTscaninOrilliaMay30thIhave suggestedsheremainoffworkuntilJune3,'dpendingcompletion oftheseinvestigations. IfyourequireanyfurtherinformationregardingLindypleasefeel freetOcontactme. DuringthistimeDr.DavidAllanalsosawthegrievor,InanotetoMs. Vardy'sfamilyphysicianDr.Allanstated: IsawLindyintheofficeonMay9,2002,followingherrecent laparoscopy.Shelooksverywell.Thereisnosignificantpathology atthetimeoflaparoscopy.Ithinkalotofherproblemis functionalandsheisawareofthatandisbasicallydealingwitha careerchangewhich1thinkcontributestohersymptoms.Atany rate,nothingfurtherfromasurgicalstandpointneedstobedone atthistime. OnMay30,2002Dr.Wilsonsawthegrievoragainandnoted: 9 Whatwassurprisingwashowmuchbettershewasfeelingthis pastmonthoffworknowforseveralweeks.WhileIamsureshe hasbeensomewhatreassuredbythenegativeinvestigationsshe hasdecidedtohandinherresignationatthelabandplanson pursingadiplomaininteriordesigninTorontothissummer.I suspectshewasunderconsiderablestressandhavingdifficulty copingwiththechangesinlabprocedureandthatthebulkofher symptomswerepsychosomatic.Nowthatshehastakenstepsto relievethestresssheseemstobeonthemendalthoughmaywell havesomedegreeofunderlyingirritablebowelsyndrome. Ms.Vardytestifiedthatsheattemptedtoreturntoworkbutherattempt wasunsuccessfulbecauseshecouldnot"riseabovehersymptoms."She wasstillexperiencingfatigue,headachesanddifficultywalkingatthe timethatsheattemptedtoreturntoworkinJuneof2002. OnJuly4th,2002,Dr.Wilsonagainsawthegrievorandhewrotetoher familypractitioner,thefollowing,inpart: IsawLindyagainthisafternoonaccompaniedbyafriend,Dianne. ItseemsshereturnedtoworkeveningsforSdaysJune10thand toleratedthesereasonablywell.Unfortunatelythefollowingweek June17thshefoundquitestressfulafter48hoursanddeveloped recurrentabdominalpainsrequiringassessmentintheERbyDr. MacKinnon.ShehadarepeatabdominalultrasoundthatIam assumingwerenormal.ShesawyouJune14ththandwasstarted onDicetelwhichshehasbeentakingS0mg.twicedailyandhas graduallyimprovedsincethen. Apparentlyshedidhandinherresignationatthehospitalbutit wasnotacceptedasshewasonsickleaveatthetime.Shehas beenofferedanextendedleaveofabsenceforupto6monthsand isentitledto50%ofherwagesfor15weeksthroughan employmentinsuranceprogramatthehospitalwhichshewill takefortheinitialperiod. 10 Ihadalongchatwithherthisafternoon.Iunderstandsheisalso seeingPamMcDermottregularly.Ithinktherearefeaturesof depressionwhichherfriendacknowledged.1thinkitisclearshe findshercurrentjobpositionquitestressfulandhasbeenhaving increasingdifficultycopingthepast2years.Isuggestedshe continuetheDicetelforacoupleofweeksandoncesheis removedfromtheworkenvironmentshemaybeabletomanage againwithoutit.However,Isuggestedshemightwanttoconsider oneoftheSSRI'swhichIsuspectmighthelpalotofherabdominal symptoms. Onthesameday,Dr.WilsonwrotetotheHumanResourcesDepartment oftheHospitalandsaidthefollowing: Ireassessedthis43year-oldlabtechnicianthisafternoonwith respecttoherrecentproblems. IhadoriginallyseenherApril3attherequestofDoctors BraniganandAllan.Theproblemwasoneofintermittentright lowerquadrantabdominaldiscomfortoverseveralyearswhich becameaggravatedthisspringalongwithassociatedsymptomsof atypicalchestpain,light-headednessandsyncope,headachesand depressivesymptoms.Thisrequiredherbeingoffworkfrommid MarchIbelieveuntilearlyJune.Inpartthiswasduetoherillness aswellasaratherlargenumberofinvestigationstopinthis down.Ithinkitisfairtosaytherewasalsoacomponentofjob relatedstress. WhenIsawhertowardstheendofMayshewasactually considerablyimprovedafterherremovalfromherwork environment.However,shehasrelapsedsomewhatintheinterim withongoingabdominalpainsandalmostcertainlyhasan underlyingirritablebowelsyndromethatinitiallyonsetseveral yearsagoandhasflaredforwhateverreasonthisspring.Shehas beenstartedonDicetalbyherfamilyphysiciananditremainsto bedeterminedhowshewillrespondtothis.Itisverylikelythata prolongedleavefromherpresentemploymentmaybenecessary 11 intheinterestofherphysicalandemotionalhealthwhileshe comestotermswiththestresssheisgoingthrough. Afewweekslaterthegrievorsawagastroenterologistwhonotedthat she"wouldagreethatthemostlikelydiagnosisisanirritablebowel syndromeandthismayhavebeenprecipitatedbythestressshehas beenunder."Thegrievorcontinuedtoseevariousphysiciansthatfall. Duringthistimethegrievorappliedforandreceivedshort-termsick leavebenefitsprovidedinaccordancewiththeCollectiveAgreement. Afterthefifteenweeksofshort-termillnessbenefitssheappliedfor Long-TermDisability(LTD)butwasdeniedbytheHospital'sinsurance carrier,ClaricaInsurance.Sheutilizedtheappealprocesssetoutinthe CollectiveAgreementfordenialofLTDbutherclaimwasagaindenied. ThegrievorunderwentanIndependentMedicalEvaluationaspartof theLTDappealprocess.ThatIMEwasperformedbyapsychiatrist.On January2003,Dr.PamelaMcKermottreportedthefollowingtothe insurancecompany: DiagnosisusingDSM-IV Axis1:(possible)296.22MajorDepressiveDisorder:Moderate 309.0AdjustmentDisorderwithDepressedFeaturesdueto physicalsymptomslimitingfunctioning Axisll:Nil Axis111:(Iamunawareofanyconcretediagnosisasyetalthough thepatienthasundergonetestingandexaminationfororganic diseasetoaccountforphysicalsymptomsofpain,fatigue, weaknessetc.) AxisIV:Problemswithprimarysupportgroup:family-of-origin issues;problemswithoccupation(disagreementsinthe workplace,issuesofover-work,shift-work);economicproblems (financialstrainsduetoillness); 12 AxisV:GAF55 ThesymptomsrelativetotheAxis1diagnosesare:anxiety,worry andrumination,overwhelmingfatigue,decreaseinconcentration, somememorydeficits,lackofmotivationattimes,anhedonia, moreeasilyoverwhelmedbydailylife,lackofinterestin activities,indecisiveness,inabilitytoengageinmanyofherdaily hobbies(crafts,exercise,creativepursuits),irritability,sleepand appetitedisturbance. Howdojobsatisfactionand/orworkplaceissuescontributetothe clinicalpictureormakeitdifficultforthepatienttoreturnto work?Ms.Vardyreportsthattherehavebeenlong-standing problemsinherdepartmentastheresultoffundingproblems, changeinmanagement,poormorale,conflictsbetween employeesandbetweenemployeesandsupervisorystaff, overwork,shiftsetc.Theseexternalstressorscouldcontributeto anxietyandmoodproblemsandbeafactorthatwouldinterfere witheagernesstoreturntowork;howeveritisnotpossibletosay whethertheyarecausalormerelyanassociationnorifthings weredifferentintheworkplaceifthatwouldsubstantiallyalter thesituation,IbelieveMs.Vardywouldassertthatitisher physicallimitationsratherthanemotionalonesthathaveheroff workcurrently,andthatworkinginanotherlocationwouldnot alterherdisablingsymptoms, Thegrievor'sfamilyphysicianalsowrotetotheinsurancecarrierin Januaryof2003.InhernoteDr.Braniganreviewedthevarious investigationsandtreatmentsthathadbeenundertaken.OnMarch3, 2003,Dr.Wilsonwrotetotheinsurancecarrierandrecappedhis investigationsandtreatment.Hisnotestated,inpart: Despitebeingremovedfromherworkenvironmentsincelast Juneshehascontinuedtobesymptomaticwithcomplaintsof fatigue,easilybeingexhausted,lethargyandunabletocopeboth withherformerpositionaswellasacourseinretaildesignshe attemptedtotakewhileonleaveofabsencefromheremployment 13 thispastfallinToronto.Wonderingwhethersomeofher symptomsmightberelatedtophysiologicalovariancystsshe resumedheroralcontraceptiveNovember15thlastyearandhas improvedsomewhatsinceparticularlywithrespecttoherlower backandabdominalpains.However,Ithinkitisfairtosaysheis stillnotabletofunctionatheroriginalstatusandhascertainly notbeenabletobeasactiveasshewasformallyataphysical level, Ithinkitisobviousatthispointgiventhatshehasresignedfrom herformerpositionthatworkrelatedstressisonlypartofthe problemhereandthattheremaybemoreofanunderlying generalizedanxietydisorderthanIoriginallyappreciatedand/or depressivedisordernototherwisespecified,Myfeelingwouldbe thatsheremainsdisabledonthisbasisasopposedtoheroriginal presentingsymptomatoloynamelythatofirritablebowelwhich seemstobecontrolledwithestrogentherapy. OnFebruary20th,2003Mr.Palmerwrotetothegrievoraboutapossible returntoworkafteritwasknownthatLTDbenefitshadbeendenied. Thatletterstated,inpart: Itisnecessaryforustoknowwhatyourintentionsarerelativeto returningtotheworkplace.Asyoucanappreciateweneedto makeimmediatestaffingarrangementswithinthedepartment. Pleasecontactme,inwriting,byFebruary28,2003toadviseme ofyourreturntoworkdateaswemustschedulere-orientation shiftstoacquaintyouwiththenewtechnologyintroducedtothe departmentduringyourabsence.Ifyouarenotplanningtoreturn toworkwemustalsoreceivenotification,inwriting,February28, 2003.Ifwedonothearfromyoubythisdatetheorganizationwill takethepositionthatyoudonotwishtocontinueyour employmentwithAlgonquinHealthSciences. OnFebruary26,2003,Ms.VardywrotetoMs.DalrympleinHuman Resourcesinformingthatshewasilland"stillpursuingeffective treatments"andwouldbeappealingherdenialofLTDbenefits. 14 InJuneof2003Ms.Vardythoughtthatshewouldbeabletoreturnto work,Hersymptomswereabating.Shetestifiedthatshewouldhave neededafewrestrictionssuchasnomissedbreaks(becauseofherneed toeatregularly)nonightshifts(sothatshewouldbeabletosleep throughthenight)andanabilitytomoveaboutsothatshewasnotin onepositionfortoolongaperiod.Shehadunderstoodfromthe commentsmadebyoneofherphysiciansthattheserestrictionswere needed, Thegrievortestifiedthatshewasveryanxioustoreturntoworkto allowhertoreturntohercareerandfinancialstability.Shethoughtthat itwouldhelptofacilitateherreturnifshecouldworkasatechnicianat theBurk'sFallssite.Shealsosuggesteditmightbepossibleforherto performclericalworkand/orupdatelaboratoryproceduralmanuals. ShewantedtoworkatBurk'sFallsbecauseitisa"morecalm" environmentandwassteadydayshiftwork.Itwouldhavebeen stressfuland"toxic"forhertoreturntothelaboratoryinHuntsville becausetherewereanumberofpracticesshefounddifficult, InAprilof2001,priortoabsentingherselffromworkduetoillness,Ms. Vardywasinvolvedinamotorvehicleaccidentthatoccurredduring workinghours.BoththegrievorandMr.BryonPalmerweretravelling toaneducationalsessionwhenthecartheywereinwashitfrombehind byanothercar.ThegrievortestifiedthatshedidnotfilloutanyWSIB formsorincidentreportbecauseatthetimeoftheaccidentshewas 1S shakenup.Shehadexperiencedstiffnessforafewdaysbutwasbackat workasscheduledshortlythereafter.Thisaccidentcametothe Employer'sattentionforthefirsttimeinaletterdatedMay14,2003 fromMr.DonStewart,StaffRepresentativefortheUnion.Inthatletter hesaid,inpart: Notwithstandingthecurrentgrievancearbitrationprocessbeing pursuedbytheUniononbehalfofMs.Varywithrespecttotile denialofLTDbenefits,Iamseekingameetingtodiscussthe optionsrelativetoprovidingMs.Vardywithaworkplace accommodation. ThisaccommodationwouldbepursuanttotheOntarioHuman RightCodetakingintoaccountwhatIwillcharacterizeasa poisonedworkenvironment.Iappreciatethatthislatter characterizationwillneedtobereviewedhowever,Iamconfident thatonceyouoryourrepresentativehavebeenapprisedofthe factsyouwillagreewiththeneedtoencompassthiselementinto suchanaccommodation. Ibelieveitisnecessarytodrawoneofthesefactstoyour attentionatthistimebecauseinmyopinionitisareflectionofthe negligenceandmismanagementofthematterssurroundingMs. Vardy'ssituation.Thisinformationwasrelayedtomerecently. OnoraboutApril11,2001Ms.Vardywasasthedriverofherown vehicleintransitontheEmployer'sbusiness,withMr.Bryon Palmerasapassenger.Ms.Vardywasinvolvedinanaccident wherebyshewasrear-endedonthe401inwhichshelater discoveredshehadbeeninjured. Mr.Palmer'sconductattheaccidentscenewasdemeaningand accusatorytowardsMs.Vardyandthis"attitude"whichpre-dated theaccidentcontinueduntilMs,Vardywentoffonsickleave.No WSIBclaimoranyotherformorreportwasfiledtothebestofMs. Vardy'sknowledge. 16 AmeetingwasheldonJune27,2003todiscusspossible accommodationsforthereturntoworkofMs.Vardy.Attendingatthe meetingwasMs.KarenWrightandMs.TracyBadgerfromHuman Resources,DonStewart,thegrievorandtheLocalUnionPresident, BarbaraBerry.Accordingtothegrievor'sevidence,theHospital representativessuggestedthatshemightworkatadesksetupto screenvisitorsenteringtheHospital.ThiswasduringtheSARScrisis andthepartiesreferredtothisastheSARSdesk.TheUnionalsoraised thegrievor'ssuggestionssetoutabove.ThegrievortestifiedthatMs. Badgeraskedhertogetamedicaldocumentsettingoutherrestrictions. Thegrievorsaidthatshewastoldthatshewouldbepaidatthehigh schoolstudentrateof$11.57perhourforthiswork.TheUniontook exceptiontothisviewandstatedMs.Vardyshouldreceiveeitherher ownrateortherateoftheRegisteredPracticalNurseswhowere staffingthisdesk.Itwasleftthattheratewouldbenegotiated.There wassomediscussionaboutwhetherthegrievorcouldworkfulltimeor wouldneedagraduatedreturntowork. Ms,VardysaidthattheHospitalnevertookhersuggestionregarding workontheproceduralmanualsseriouslynordidanyonefromthe Hospitalindicateifsuchworkwasevenapossibility. InresponsetotheHospital'srequest,onJuly4,2003,Ms.Vardy'sfamily physicianwrotethefollowingnotewhichwashanddeliveredbythe Unionpresident: 17 Ms,Vardyhasaskedmetowritethisletterwithrespecttoher returningtograduatedwork.Iunderstandthatithasbeen proposedbyhercurrentemployertohaveatrialsessionof graduatedbacktoworkemployment.Ifeelatthistimethatthis wouldbeapositivestep,Lindyisagreeabletothis. Shecanreturntoworkongraduatedhours.Startingat4hoursa dayandincreasingtothesuggested10:00amto6:00pm workday.Thisgraduationshouldoccurat½hourintervalsover thenext3weeks.Duetohercurrentphysicalstatussheshould undergonosignificantheavyliftingorphysicallabour.Shemay requireshortbreakseveryhourformovingaboutandstretching. Iwouldaskthatshebeabletobringherdonutpillowtoworkto facilitateacomfortableworkenvironment, Iunderstandthattheproposedbacktoworkscheduleddoesnot includeshiftworkandIwouldagreethatthisisnotpossibleat thistime.Shedoesnotwishtoreturntofull-timedutiesatthis time. Iwillreassessherinsixweekstimeinthisgraduatedreturnto workprogramorsoonerifneeded. Hopefullythisfulfillsyourrequirementforaphysician'snoteto returntograduatedwork.Anyconcernsorquestionscanbe forwardedtotheoffice. Ms.Barry,wroteahandwrittennoteontothisletterwhichsaid,"Lindy doesnotgiveherconsentforherdoctortobecontacted,"Accordingto thegrievor,shewasnevertoldthatthisletterwasinsufficient,Another meetingwasheldonJuly25,2003todiscusstheSARSdeskasa possibleaccommodation.Mr.Stewartwasnotinattendanceatthis meeting,Agraduatedreturntoworkwasdiscussedandtheproposed schedulewasdiscussedandacceptabletothegrievor.Shehopedthe workwouldbeginimmediately.However,thematterofappropriate 18 rateofpayremainedoutstanding.Ms,Vardytestifiedthatatthis meetingMs.Badgersaidthatshewasnotentitledtoaworkplace accommodationbecausehermedicalconditionwasnottheresultofa workplaceinjury.Ms.BadgeralsoinformedtheUnionthattherateof $11.SSwas"non-negotiable". Thegrievorwrotealettertothehospitalsettingoutallegationsofa poisonedworkenvironmentafewdayslater.Shewasaskedtoresubmit theletterwithdatesascribedtotheeventswhereverpossible,The secondletterwashanddeliveredtothehospitalbyMs.Barryon September18,2003.Whilethisletterislengthy,itisreproduceditin fullbecausethetoneofthatletterishelpfultounderstandtheextentof thedamageintherelationshipatthisearlydate.Thatletterstated: Stressandapprehensionfillthespacebetweenthecomputerand myselfasIsithereabouttocomposethisdocument.Ihighly doubtthesinceritybehindtherequest,whichpromptsitswriting. Iviewboththerequestandthereviewofthisdocumentaspartof alongstandingtokenprocessensuingbetweentheHuman ResourcesDepartmentatHDMHandtheemployeeswhereby legitimateconcernsareignoredinamockversionofabizarre realityperpetuatedtosupportitsowndevices.Youhave requestedfrommethereasons,whichIfeelcontributetocreating atoxicworkenvironmentinthelaboratory.Thisisnotatokenlist butadocumentationspanningtwentyyearsasadedicated employee.AttheonsetIresolveyoufromanyrealefforttoreview thisdocumentbutyoudidrequestitafterall. Sexualinnuendoasappliedemployeetoemployeeandmanager toemployeehasbeengratefullycinchedintheworkplaceoverthe years.Remarkspertainingtothemeritsofanindividual'svisage ormaritalstatuswouldnotlongbetoleratedasacceptable.Ihave enduredremarksovertheyearssuchas...."ifIweresingleIwould 19 giveyourpartnerarunforhismoney"..,and...""youknow, Christianmenhaveneedsjustlikeothermen"..,fromBryon Palmer.AsafemaleovertheyearsIhavelongenduredthesexual innuendophenomenonthatpermeateslife.Iamnolongerwilling topretendthatIdidnothearorfullyunderstandthetoneof unacceptableremarkssuchasthese.Iamnolongerwillingtobuy theapproachthatifIignore"it","it"willgoaway.Everytime BryonPalmerduringtheweekofJune21toJune25of1999 surreptitiouslyplacedhissweatypawonmyarmduring conversationandthenquicklyremoveditIwantedtoscream... "Donottouchme]"..."Youarenotpermittedtotouchme!"..."I willreportyou!"EverytimeBryonPalmerinvadedthelimitsof respectablebodyspaceallowancesIneversaid"Getbackaway fromme!"OnFridayMarch15,2002Ididremark..."youarenot corneringmeinhere".,,ashewasattemptingtocapturemeina tightspaceforthepurposesofconversation.Itbecomeswearing attemptingtofunctionyearafteryearwithintheconfinesofa constantever-present"creepyfeeling."Thishasbeenbutone facetofmyproblemovertheyears. Howwoulditmakeyoufeelifyourmanagermaderemarkstoyou suchas..."youknowalotofpeopleareveryjealousofyou"...."I amjealousofyou"...."Iamjealousofyourtruck"?Youbeginto feelasiftheenvironmentinwhichyouworkisbizarre.Youbegin toquestionthesanityofitall.Asiftheseinappropriateremarks arenotsufficientIaskyoutoimaginethenextscenario.Iam attendingawork-relatedlecturewithBryon'Palmerinwhichthe speakerisrelatingatruestoryinwhichlaboratorypersonnel werecaughtpoisoningfellowworker'scoffeewhitenerwith radioactiveisotopes.BryonPalmerindicatedtomethatitwould beveryprudentformetopayheedandnottoleaveandlater ingestfooditemsleftoutofmysightorunattendedatwork,On ThursdayJune24,2000between10:45and11:4Sam.Bryon Palmerexplicitlywarnedmetobewareofpoisoningfromfellow laboratoryworkers.Onewouldhavetoassumethejealousyissue hadgottentotallyoutofhand.AtthispointIamreally questioningthesanityofmypresenceinthisworkenvironment. 2O MeanwhileIaminvolvedinalongstandingconflictonthejob wherebyafellowemployeeisblatantlywithholdinginformation whichIfeelimpairsmyabilitytoperformmyjobtothebest degree.When1broughtthemattertoBryonPalmer'sattentionhe chosetodisregardtheproblem.Infact,hequiteignoredmy concerns.AtonepointIwasinstructedbyBryonPalmerthatit wasindeedmyresponsibilitytocallout,atanundetermined frequencyoftimesduringtheworkingday..."isthereanything pertinentthatIneedtoknow?"theperpetratorblatantly confessestothecrimeandis"counseled".Unimpressedbyour effortstheperpetratorcontinuesthebehavior.Thistime,whenI threatentoinformthePathologistand/orourreigningCollegeof theunresolvedproblemIamreprimandedonFebruary9,2000 andpubliclyaccusedofstealingfromthehospitalbecauseIhave lookeduppatient'sresultsinanattempttoascertainnecessary informationtoadequatelyperformmyjob.Theabsolutemost difficulttimeinmycareerresultedfromthisincidentwhereby potentialharmmighthavebeencausedtoanotherhumanbeing inanattempttojeopardizemycareer.Incomprehensibleisthe onlywaytodescribethewayinwhichthismealofhumiliation doubledosedwithutterconfusionsettledintomyabdomen. Somewhatlessbizarreandfarmorecommonplacetodealwith hasbeentheblatantfavouritism,whichhasbeenrampantwithin thelaboratory.Equalworkdoesnotmeritequalpaywhensexual discriminationrearsitsuglyhead.Butthenweallknowhow theseinequalitiescanbeexplainedawayinaperfectlylogical manner.Certaintechnologistsaregivenselectiveprivilegeto countworkunitsathomepaidattechnologist'swages.These accruedovertimehourscanthenbebarteredtobeusedassaved timeinordertoescapemorearduouslaboratoryshiftssuchas weekends,eveningsornightshiftswhichusedtobemannedby oneover-workedandmajorlystressedouttechnologist.Ofcourse, thisclubofprivilegedmembershipalsoentitleditsmembersto claimthebountyof"paper-work"days.Ofcoursemuchofthis "paper-work"wasmanagementfunctionrelatedandtherebytook precedenceovermerelaboratoryfunctionrelatedpaperwork.As IranadepartmentwithaninordinateamountofpaperworkIfelt thatafairallotmentofavailabledayswasinordersothatIcould 21 keepmydepartmentrunningefficiently.ByronPalmeralways ignoredtheserequestsinordertofavourcard-carryingclub members.Itbecamemychallengetomaintainmydepartment despitetheseunfairworkallotmentsituations. Andyetmorechippingawayoftheenergiesandpsyche'softhe laboratory'sworkeratHDMH.BryonPalmerdeliberatelyavoids givingtimelyresponsestorequests.Whetheritbefordaysoff, vacationorasimplerequesttoattendalaboratoryrelated seminar.IhavebeeninformedonoccasionbyBryonPalmerthat whetherornotIwasgrantedcompensationforattendinga seminar..."dependednotuponhowrelevantitwasformetogo, butuponhowmuchhewantedmetogo".Thiswasstateddirectly afterhehadgrantedcompensationtoanotheremployeeinthe exactsamestatusposition.Onewouldhavetoquestionthe apparentandsomewhattransparentattemptsbyBryonPalmerto deliberatelycreateriftsbetweenemployees.Idistinctlyrecallone staffmeetingonDecember20,2001inwhichBryonPalmer pointedlyindicatedtothestaffthatourOPSEUunion representativeswerepresentingissuesatlabourmanagement meetingsofwhichwewereunawareandthatwereallyshouldbe collaringtheseindividualswhowererepresentingusto management.WhatBwonPalmerneglectedtosaywasthatany issuebroughtforthbyanycardcarwingOPSEUmemberisfair gamefordiscussion.Permissiontodothisneednotbegrantedby heorforthatmatterbyanyotherperson.Needlesstosayno unionrepresentativeswerepresentatthetimeofthestaff meetinginorderthatclaritybelenttotheaccusations. BryonPalmerasalaboratorymanagercontinuouslypostswork scheduledriddledwithmistakes.Wearetoldrepeatedlyofthe manager'sGod-givenrighttoscheduleasheseesfitbutshouldit notatleastreflecthonesteffortataccuracy?Whentherepeated mistakesinschedulinggoundetectedthehospitalisleft insufficientonaserviceandthatrelatestoimpactonpatientcare. IfIhadperformedmyjobsopoorly1wouldnodoubthavebeen fired.Asanemployee1amevaluatedwithadiscerningeyewith regardstotheaccuracyofthehoursthatIactuallyamonthe premisesperformingmyjob.Itsetsapoorexampletoemployees 22 whenamanagerkeepserratic"mysteryhours"andwhenthe mysteriouslyaccrueweeksofmystery"savedovertime".Should everyemployeeperhapscompensatewhatheorshemightfeelis inadequatewageswithreducedhoursofservicetothe organization?Andwouldoneperhapsquestionstheethicsof rentingavehicleforlaboratorybusiness,whichthenhappensto coincidewithandindeedextendintoaweekendoffamily entertainmentandoutings? Onewouldhavetoquestionsthepresenceofhugeproblems withinthelaboratoryofHDMH.Theactionsofuppermanagement overthedurationofmytenureinthelaboratoryseemtoindicate acertainapathytothesituation.Currentpolicydecisionswithin thelaboratorycausemetofearfortheoverallsafetyofthe proceduresbeingcarriedoutthere.Idonotevenwishtobea memberofthiscommunityshouldamistakecausesomeonetheir life,muchlessanernployeeofthehospitalatthetimethatthe erroroccurs.Althoughperseverancehasbeenaforteinmylife, myphysiologyhaseventuallycavedunderthetoxicityofmywork environment.Butthenthisisjustoneaccounting,Perhapsthe gleaningofopinionsofotheremployeesmightbeinordertolend credibilitytothesituation.Idareyoutoask. ThegrievortestifiedthatshethoughtthecommentmadebyMr.Palmer aboutwishingheweresinglewasmadesometimebetween1983and 1985.Itwasalsoaboutthattimewhenhemadethecommentabout beingaChristianmanwithneeds.Ms,Vardysaidthatshehad "absolutelynoidea"ifthecommentsmadeaboutbeingjealouswereofa sexualnature.Hiscommentregardingbeingjealousofhertruck,which shefoundtobe"bizarre"wasmadesometimearound2002whenthe twoofthemwereinthevehicle. Ms.VardytestifiedthatthroughoutheremploymentMr.Palmerwould "placehissweatypaw"onher.However,shedidnotmeantosuggest 23 thatshewasaloneinthisregard.Mr.Palmertouchedpeopleandstood toocloseusuallyonpretenseoflabbusiness.Shetestifiedthat"shejust didnotknowwhywehavetostandtooclose"unlessitwastobe intimatewithsomeone.ShethoughtthatMr.Palmerhadnosenseof decorum,Sheoncesawhimmassagetheneckofafellowworker. Thegrievorconcededthatshewas"greatlyremiss"incommunicating herdispleasurewithMr.Palmer'sactionsovermanyyears.However, shethoughtthattheolderonegetsthelessoneispreparedto"putup withunacceptablebehaviour."Sherecalledthatintheearlyyearshe toldherthatshehadabeautifulface. Anothermeetingwasheldtodiscussapossibleaccommodationon September8,2003.Mr.Stewart,Ms.BadgerandMs.Barryattended alongwiththegrievor.Ms.VardytestifiedthatMr.Stewartwasurging theHospitalseriouslyconsiderthesuggestedaccommodationofwork updatingmanualsandotherclericalworkatthelabinBurk'sFalls.The grievorexpectedtobepaidherregularwagebutunderstoodthatifthe accommodationweresuccessfulshewouldeventuallybeworkingata lowerrateofpay.Accordingtothegrievor,atthismeetingMs.Badger toldherthatshedidnotbelievethatshehadbeenilland,furthershe didnotthinkthatanyaccommodationwasnecessary.Ms.Badgertold thegrievorthatsheshouldreturntoherregularpositionatthe laboratory.Thisupsetthegrievorandsheleftthemeeting.Ms.Vardy testifiedthatafterthefilingofhergrievanceonSeptember24,2003,the Hospitalneverproposedanyotherfacilitatedreturntowork. 24 Twomonthsafterthegrievorsubmittedhercommentsregardingthe poisonedworkenvironment,shereceivedaresponsefromtheHospital. ThatcorrespondenceacknowledgedthecomplaintandinformedMs. Vardythataninvestigationwastobeundertaken.Shewastoldshe wouldbeinterviewedandshewas.InaletterdatedJanuary29,2004 Ms.McFarlane,Director,NursingandDiagnosticServicesinformedthe grievorofthefollowing: Asyouknow,weundertookanextensiveinvestigationin responsetoyourallegationthatthelaboratorywasa"poisoned" workenvironment.Theinvestigationisnowcomplete.Wehave carefullyconsideredandreviewedalloftheinformationthatwas collectedfromtheinterviewswithlaboratorystaff,theLab Manager,theMedicalDirectorortheLaboratoryandyou. Wesincerelyregretthenegativeperceptionyouhaveofthe laboratoryworkenvironmentattheAlgonquinHealthServices andunderstandthatovertheyearsyouhaveexperiencedwhat youregardasverynegativeinterpersonalrelationsand interactionswiththepersontowhomyoureported. Asaresultofthemanyhourswespentinterviewinglabstaff membersabouttheirperceptionofthelabworkenvironment,we haveidentifiedareaswhereimprovementscanandwillbemade. Specificallywewillbereinforcingourcommitmenttoensuring consistentpracticesintheareasofcommunicationand educations.However,theinformationobtainedthroughthe investigationdoesnotsubstantiateyourclaimsofapoisoned workenvironment.Thisisn'ttodenyyourperceptionofevents. Wehavetriedveryhardtorespecttheconflictingopinionsofthe partiesinvolvedinthisissue. Inalargeorganizationsuchasoursitisveryimportanttorespect thediversityofopinion,personality,culture,beliefsandvalues, whicheachpersonbringstotheworkenvironment.Not 25 unexpectedly,thingsmaybesaidanddoneinthecourseofthe daybysomewhichmayoffendothers,Asaresultofyour allegationsandthisinvestigation,wewillendeavortoeffect positivechangesandheightenedsensitivityregardingtheimpact ofinterpersonalrelationshipsandconflictmanagementinthe laboratory. Thegrievortestifiedthatshewasneveraskedtoreturntoworkafter shereceivedthisletter.Further,atnotimeafterthefilingofher grievancedidsheevertelltheHospitalthatshewaswithdrawingher accommodationrequest. Duringherevidencethegrievorspentconsiderabletimereviewingthe variouslaboratorymanuals,Shetestifiedthatupgradesarealways neededforthesemanuals.Shewasoftheviewthattherewouldhave beenapproximatelyfourtofivedaysofworkinthesummerof2003to updatethemanuals,Thisworkwaswithinthescopeofherability. AdditionallytherewasworkrequiredonthemanualsfortheOntario LaboratoryAccreditation.Ms.Vardytestifiedthatshewasawarethat twotechnologistsweretakenfromtheirnormaldutiesandreplacedby otherstocompleteandupdatingprocessfortheaccreditation. Thegrievortestifiedthatherhealthwassteadilyimprovingduringthe fallof2003.OnDecember12,2003,Dr.W.l.Reynolds,aRheumatologist wroteaconsultationnote,Itisnotnecessarytosetoutthatnotein detailbecausemuchofthereportedsymptomologyisarepeatofwhat hasbeenstatedearlierbyotherphysicians.Onpagetwoofhisnoteit wasstated: 26 Iagreewiththediagnosisoffibromyalgiaandthisincludesallof theabovesymptoms,i.e.thevariouspainsymptoms,hersleep deprivationsymptoms,andherautonomicsymptoms.Shehashad experiencesinthepastthatcontributedtotheonsetandthe ongoingseverityofhersymptoms.She,ofcourse,hasasignificant disabilityasaconsequenceofhersymptomseverity. ItalkedtoMs.Vardyaboutourcurrentunderstandingof fibromyalgia,outliningunderlyingphysiologicalabnormalitiesin thisdisorder,particularlychangesintheautonomicnervous systemofthebody. Sheneedstopaceherselfappropriatelyinordernottocausea stimulationofsymptoms,andsheisawareofthis.Iwentover patternsofexercisesthatsheneedstoperformandtheseare stretchingroutinesfortwominutesatleastfourtimesadayanda walkingactivityof5minutestwiceaday. Intimspringof2003Ms.VardybeganseeingDr.Hoogenhuizewho specializesinimmunology.Hisletterheadsuggestsheprovides"an integratedapproachtomanydiseasesincludingallergy,chronicfatigue syndrome,fibromyalgia,ADHD&Migraine;NutritionalCounseling."She continuedtoseeDr.Hoogenhuizeaboutsixtimesinthefollowingyear. Inherview,itwashissuggestionsthatbroughtabout"animmense alleviation"ofhersymptoms.Accordingtothegrievor,Dr.Hoogenhuize toldherthatoftenfibromyalgiaisoftenamisdiagnosisforallergies.In hercase,Ms.Vardywasfoundtohavemanyallergies,apoorinsulin responseandalowbloodpressure.Dr.Hoogenhuizeprescribeda regimenofallergyshotsandorderedvariousdietaryrestrictions.These treatmentscontinue. 27 DuringthistimeshewasalsoreferredtoDr.PierreKerwin,a rehabilitationspecialist.Hewasseentwicebythegrievor.Heagreed withthediagnosisoffibromyalgiaandorderedexercise.Shortlyafter this,Ms.VardysawDr.EvelynWolfwhoassistedinspecialized nutritionalcounseling. Dr.HoogenhuizewroteareportinSeptember2004,whichagainsetout manyofMs.Vardy'svarioussymptoms.SimilartoDr.Reynolds,he foundthatthegrievorhad"sixteenoutofeighteenfibromyalgiapoints" thatwerepositive.Healsomakesspecificreferencetoanautomobile accidentexperiencedbythegrievorin2001.Inthatregardhenoted: OnApril1,2001shewastravellingveryslowlyinacarontheway intoTorontowhenatruckrear-endedthevehiclebehindher whichthencrashedintohercausingextensivedamagetothecar. Subsequentlythereseemedtobeanexacerbationofherright lowerquadrantpainandpaininherlowerbackandlegs.Atthe timeoftheaccident,however,theredidn'tseemtobeanymajor problem.Shewasabletogetoutofthecarandwalkaround normally.Shealsosubsequentlydevelopedpaininherfeet.She wastendingtofeelweakalloverherbody.Shecomplainsofsome dizzinessandfaintnessandwonderedwhethershepossiblymight havewhatiscalledneutrallymediatedhypotension.Oneofher otherdoctors,however,haddonestudiesoftheadrenalglands andfoundthattheywerefunctioningnormally.Wesuggestedthat shemightincreasehersaltintaketoseeiftheyhelped. Hewentontonote,"allofherdifficultieshavenotbeentotallyresolved butsheismuchbetter."Therewereanumberofrecommendations maderegardingpossibleallergensandappropriatenutrition. 28 Inherevidence,thegrievorstatedthatshehasencounteredfinancial difficultysinceshehasleftthehospital.Shehasherownbusinesswhich shebeganin2004. Incrossexaminationthegrievorwasaskedabouthergrievancethat wasfiledinthespringof2003regardingthefailuretopayherLTD benefits.Shesaidshedidnotknowifhergrievancespokeoftotal disabilitybutshedidknowthatshehadpaidheavilyintotheLTDpolicy andshewasentitledtoredeemitwhileshestruggledtogetbetter.Ms. VardywasremindedofthecivilactionshetookagainsttheInsurance CarrierafterherLTDappealwasdenied.Inherstatementofclaim, datedOctober13,2004,itwasstated,"thePlaintiffclaimsthatshe remainstotallydisabledandhasprovidedmedicaldocumentationof totaldisability.ThePlaintiffclaimsthattheDefendanthasrefusedto provideherwithdisabilitybenefitsinbreachofitspolicy."Ms.Vardy agreedthatwasherpositionforaperiodinexcessoftwoyears followingtheperiodforwhichshereceivedshort-termsickleave.She saidthatherlawyermadea"verylargeclaiminorderthatIreceivethe minimum,whichIdid." TheMemorandumofAgreementsignedAprilof2007regardingMs. Vardy'sclaimagainsttheinsurancecarrierwasreviewed.Shereceived anamountof$48,000.lesslegalfeesandpastincometaxdue. Ultimatelyshereceivedanamountofover$30,000. 29 DuringthecourseofthislitigationthegrievorwasdeposedonJanuary 11,2005.Acopyofthetranscriptwasreviewedduringhercross examination.Shewasremindedthatduringherdepositionshetestified thatshehadnotyet"returnedtohealth".Shealsosaidthatasofthat dateshecouldnotreturntoworkasaLabTechnologist.Furthm;she testifiedinherdepositionthatshewasunabletoreturntoworkinan accommodatedposition.Shenotedthatshefoundshiftworkdemanding andthatshefoundthephysicalenvironmenttoxicbecauseofthelackof pooraircirculation,florescentlightingandworkingwithcarcinogenic substances.Shealsosaidinthatprocessthatherpersonalworklifewas toxicdueto"alousymanager".Inhercross-examinationbeforethis Boardshesaidthatthelabwaspoorlymanagedinamannerthat fosteredconflictbetweenemployees.Whenaskedwithwhomshehada conflictMs.Vardysaid,"itmightbeeasiertosaywhoshedidn'thave conflictwith."Specificallyshesaidthattherewerefivepeopleshehad difficultywith,allofwhomremaininthelab. Despiteherevidencegivenduringherdepositionforhercivilaction,the grievorclaimedduringhercross-examinationthatshecouldhave workedwithaccommodationifshereceivedadequatebreaks.When askedwhyherevidencedifferedshesaidonlythatshewasnever offeredaccommodation. Ms.VardywasalsodirectedtoherJanuary8th2005applicationfor HOOPdisabilitybenefits.Inherapplicationshesaidthat"duetothe demandingnatureofmypreviousjobandphysicallimitationsofmy 30 conditionwithrespecttotheenduranceoffatigue,Iamunableto performinaworkenvironment."Shealsosaidthatshecould"nolonger performherpreviousjobandthat"thereisnotypeofworkIcould performthroughtheEmployerorretraining."Whenaskedaboutthese statementsinhercrossexaminationMs.Vardysaidthatsheshould havesaidthatshecouldnotworkinaworkplacewithout accommodation.Whileshetookresponsibilityforthesecommentsshe testifiedthatsheactedinaccordancewiththesuggestionsofher lawyer. Thegrievorwasaskedanumberofquestionsregardingmitigation. Otherthanstartingherownnurserybusinessin2004,Ms.Vardyhas notsoughtotheremployment.Herbusinesswasinanegativecashflow for2006and2007.Atthetimeofthehearingherbusinesswasvalued at$41,000. Ms.Vardymadeclearinhercross-examinationthatshedoesnotwant toreturntoworkattheHospital.Howevel,shewasoftheviewthathad herconcernsaboutthephysicalrestrictionsandtheneedto accommodateherconcernsregardingMr.Palmerin2003beenheeded shecouldhavereturnedtoworkandbeenreintegratedintothejob. Ms.VardywasaskedaboutthemeetingofJune27,2003incross examination.Sherecalledthatshewasaskedtoprovidemedical documentationregardingherrestrictionsanditwasthisrequestthat broughtabouttheJuly4,2003letterfromDr.Harold,whichwasthe 31 onlymedicaldocumentationtheHospitalactuallyreceivedpriortothe litigationofthisgrievance. Thegrievoragreedincross-examinationthatnomedicaldocumentation waseversubmittedtotheEmployerregardingnecessaryrestrictions foranaccommodationflowingfromapoisonedworkenvironment. However,theHospitalwasmadeawarethatitwasherwishtominimize contactwithMr.Palmer. Ms.Vardytestifiedthatshethoughtitpossiblethataclericalrolewas availableforherduringthisperiod.Whenaskedincrossexamination shesaidthatsucharolecouldhaveallowedhertoperformworkthat waslessstressful,withouttraumaoremergencysituationsthereby allowinghertoregainherhealthwhilebeinguseful. Ms.Vardyagreedthattheresheneverhadanydiscussionabouther workingattheSARSdeskandfilingagrievanceregardingappropriate compensation,ItwasputtoMs.VardythatsheindicatedattheJune27th meetingthattheSARSdeskpositionwas"notworththeaggravation" andthatshemightaswellstayhomeandnotbeexposedto"everygerm knowntoman".Sheagreedthatsheexpresseddissatisfactionwiththe workbeingoffered.Further,shethoughtitmadesensethatshewould beconcernedaboutbeingcompromisedregardinggerms.Shetestified thatshewastoldbyoneofherhealthcarepractitionersthatthiswould beapoorchoiceofjobsgivenherimmunecompromisedsystem. 32 However,neithershenortheUnioninformedanyoneattheHospitalof anyimmuneissuesshewasexperiencing, Ms,VardywasaskedaboutthediscussionofSeptember18,2003.She saidthatshewasfrustratedwithMs.Badgerbeingunpreparedtodeal withtheissues.Ms.VardybecamefrustratedwhenMs.Badgersaidthat themeetingwasbookedforthe28thofSeptemberandthereforeshe wasnotpreparedtodiscusstheissues.Asthediscussionprogressed,it becameheatedandsomewhatunprofessionalandforthisreasonshe absentedherself. Thegrievorwasquestionedatsomelengthabouthervarious allegationsregardingsexualharassment.Sheconcededthatthefirsttwo commentssetoutinherletterofcomplaint(setoutabove)weremade byMr.Palmerinapproximately1983or1984whenhewasaco worker.Shedidnotcomplaintohimortoherownmanageratthetime thatthesecommentswereunwelcome.Indeed,thefirsttimethatthese commentswereraisedwithanyoneattheHospitalwasinthedocument shesentinthesummerof2003.Sheconcededthatthecommentsshe attributedtoMr.Palmeraboutbeingjealousofhertruckwerenot sexualharassment,althoughshewasnotsurehowtointerpretthose statements. Ms.Vardywasoftheviewthattherewasa"sexualcomponent"when shewastouchedonthearmbyMr,Palmer.Sheneverexpressedthisto Mr.PalmeroranyoneelseattheHospitaluntilshewroteherletter. 33 However,thetimethatMr.Palmer"cornered"herintheofficeshe expressedconcern.Sheconcededthathemusthavemoved"becauseI didnothavetohithim."Shetestifiedthatsheneverunderstoodifthis incidentwassexualinnatureorwhetheritwas"partofadomineering posture." i i WhenMs.VardywasremindedthatMr.Palmerlefttheemployofthe Hospitalforthreeorfouryearsandthenreturnedasmanager.Shewas askedifshewaspartofasmallgroupwhoencouragedhimtoapplyfor thepositionofmanager.Shewasevasiveduringthislineofquestioning. ShesaidthatsherecalledsayingtothePathologistatthetimethatit was"bettertodealwithtilebeastyouknow."Shesaidthatshedidnot expressanyparticularreservationsabouthishiringbecauseshehad "alwaysmanagedtosurvivehim."Shereluctantlyrecalledaninstance whereshethankedMr.Palmerforhelpingherduringadifficulttime whensheneededtimeoffforpersonalreasons. Incross-examinationMs.VardywasaskedaboutwhetherMr.Palmer treatedmendifferentlythanwomen.Sherespondedthatsheknewthat themeninthedepartmentwouldbeassignedthe"incharge"position thatbringsaboutapremium,Whileshedidnotascribethispracticeto Mr.Palmershethoughtthathecontinuedthisalreadyestablished inequality.Shesuggestedthatwomenhavebeengiventhisdesignation sincesheleftthelab. 34 Theinvestigationundertakenastheresultofherallegationsofsexual harassmentwerereviewedincross-examination.Sheknewonlyofher owninterviewandwasnotadvisedatthetimeoftheprocess.However, sheknewthatotherswerebeingquestionedabouttheissues.Whenshe receivedtheresultsoftheinvestigationshedidnotagreewiththe findings.Thegrievorwasunawareofanyfurtheractiontakenbythe Unionafterthisinvestigation. Ms.VardywasremindedthatbutfortheactionsofMs.BadgerandMr. PalmershewouldhaveresignedheremploymentinJuneof2002.She agreedthattheyconvincedhertowithdrawherresignationandapply forshorttermsickbenefitsbutthoughtthiswasdonebecause"shewas illandtheyheldthemselvesaccountablefortheconditionsthatcaused metoleave". Dr.PierreKirwingaveevidenceintheseproceedings.Heisaphysician withapracticefocusingonboneandsofttissueinjuriesaswellas neurologicalinjuries.Healsoseesmanypatientswithfibromyalgia.He describedfibromyalgiaasasyndromeinvolvingpainofthespine, involvingtherightorleftsideofthebody.Thereareeighteen"tender points"spreadoverthebodyandinordertobediagnosedwith fibromyalgia,atleastelevenmustbeidentified. Dr.Kirwinsawthegrievorinthefallof2003andhediagnosedherwith fibromyalgiabasedonhersymptomsandhistory.Henotedinareport writtentoDr.VanHoogenhuizedatedSeptember29,2003thatherpain 35 beganshortlyafterhermotorvehicleaccidentinthespringof2001,His fivepagereportincludedahistoryofhersymptomsandtreatmentsto thatpoint,Onpage4ofhisreporthenotedthatMs,Vardywasrunning eightkilometersthreetimesandweekandwasanxioustoreturnto marathonrunning,Inhisassessmenthestated,inpart: Ms.Vardyappearstobegraduallyrecoveringfromanirritable bowelsyndromeplusfibromyalgiaalthoughhersymptomsare nottotallyclassicalforthefibromyalgia.Atthetime,her complaintsareundergoodcontrol.Reassuringlyhowever,allher complaintsappeartobeimprovingwiththechangeindietand theallergyshotsyouareproviding.Shehasexcellentrangeof motionofthespine.Infact,sheisquiteanxioustoreturnto marathonrunningandalsofollowthroughwithaworktrialI encouragehertodothesame. Dr.KirwinsawMs.VardyagainonMay22,2008.Hewroteafifteen pagereportafterthatconsultationheansweredquestionsposed.He notedthatheroverallconditionhadimprovedbuthewasoftheview that"shedoeshavelimitationsinherabilitytoperformworkina hospital,inparticularsheisunabletotoleratetheintensity,endurance andstressrequiredinthisjob.Sheisalsounabletotolerateheavy lifting,prolongedstandingorsitting,lackoffrequentbreaksand repetitivemovementofthelumbarspinerequiredinthishospitaljob." Heopinedthat"asofMay22,2008Ms.Vardycouldnotmaintainfull timeorparttimeworkemploymentasalabtechnologist"althoughshe couldmanage"fulltimeemploymentinanalternativeposition(i.e.she isnowworkinginthenursery/gardeningbusinessfulltime)."Hewasof theviewthatshewas"fittoworkonaparttimebasisonapproximately lateAugustof2003," 36 Dr,Kirwintestifiedthatbecametohisviewsaboutthegrievor'sability todotheworkofalabtechnologistbasedonthevocationalhistolT providedbyMs.Vardy.Healsonotedthathisopinionofwhenshewas fittoreturntoworkwasbaseduponherselfreportingorsymptoms andtreatments.Hefurtherstatedthatheunderstoodthatshewas working70to80hoursperweekduringthe"growing"seasonather nurseryasearlyasFebruaryof2007." IncrossexaminationDr.Kirwinconcededthatnormallywhenhegives anopinionastoapatient'sabilitytoreturntoworkhereceivesformal documentstoassistinhisassessmentsuchasreturntoworkprotocols anddescriptionsofthedutiesandresponsibilitiesofthepositionat issue.Inhiscase,hisviewofMs.Vardy'sabilitytoreturntoworkwas basedonwhatshesaidshecoulddo.Tobeclear,hesaidthatbased uponhercommentsregardingwhatshewasabletodo,hethoughtshe wasabletoreturntoworkinAugustof2003. Dr.KirwinneversentacopyofeitherofhisreportstotheEmployer althoughhethoughthis2003letterwhichwassenttoWSIBwouldhave beenforwardedtotheEmployer. Dr.Kirwinagreedthatthereisasubjectivecomponenttoadiagnosisof fibromyalgiabecauseoftheneedtorelyuponthepatientsselfreporting ofsymptoms,However,hehastenedtoaddthattheobjectivefindingsof physicalsymptoms-thatistosaythetenderpoints-isanobjective 37 measure.Inthegrievor'scase,herdiagnosiswasmadeonthebasisof herpainreportedalthoughhersymptomswerenotclassicalbecause noteverysectionofherbodywasinvolved. BarbaraBarryalsotestified.ShebasbeenaLabTechnologistatthe Hospitalinexcessoftwentyyears.SheispresentlytheUnionPresident andwasthestewardinJuneof2003.Shetestifiedthatduringthe summerof2003therewereninefulltimeLabTechnologistsandfour parttime.AdditionallytherewasonefulltimeLabTechniciansand threeorfourparttime.Additionallythereweredozensofclericaljobs withinthehospital. Ms.BarrysaidthatinAugustof2005HuntsvilleHospita!andthe hospitalinBracebridgemerged.Atthattimethenumberoflaboratory positionswouldhavedoubled.AtthesametimetheUnionwonthe rightstorepresenttheofficeandclericalemployeesaswellasthe paramedicalstaff. Ms.BarrystatedthatthegrievorfirstapproachedherandDonStewart inthespringof2003aboutapossiblereturntowork.Ms.Vardytold themthatshecouldpossiblydotheworkofatechnicianintheBurk's Fallsfacilityorperhapsworkonmanuals, Ms.BarrytestifiedthatshefirstheardoftheSARSdeskaccommodation forthegrievoratameetingheldattheHospital.SherecalledthatMs. TraceyBadgersaidthattherewouldhavetobeamedicalapproval 38 beforethegrievorcouldreturnonagraduatedbasis.Furtheritwas suggestedthatperhapsaFunctionalAbilitiesEvaluationwouldbe neededsothatanymedicallimitationswouldbeclear.Thewageratefor thispositionwasdiscussedandMs.Badgersaiditwas$11.55perhour buttheratewasnegotiable.Ms.Barryfoundthatoddbecause RegisteredPracticalNurseswereperformingtheworkandwerebeing paidatamuchhigherrate.Duringthismeetingthegrievor'sinterestin workinginanaccommodatedpositioninthelabatBurk'sFallswas raisedbyMr,Stewart, Ms.BarrydeliveredtheletterfromDr.HaroldtotheHospitalthatstated thegrievorwasabletoengageinagraduatedreturntowork.Therewas norequestfromtheHospitalforfurtherinformationatthattime. Ms.BarrywrotetotheHospitalstatingthattheUnionwasoftheview thatanyworkattheSARSdeskperformedbythegrievorinan accommodatedpositionshouldbecompensatedatherregularrateof pay.Ms.BarryrecalledtheJuly25th2003meetingwhereintheSARS deskaccommodationwasagaindiscussed.Therewasdiscussionabout thegraduatedhours,theneedforbreaks,anupcomingmaskfittingand anorientationtotakeplaceonJuly29th,2003.WhenMs.Badgersaid thattheratefortheworkwouldbe$11.5Sbecausethescreeningwas nolongerasintenseasithadbeenatthebeginningoftheprogram,Ms. BarrymadeclearitwasnotacceptabletotheUnion.Thegrievorthen saidthatitwasnotreallyworthhertimetoworkatthatwagegiven thatshewasapersonwithanauto-immunesystemproblembeing 39 offeredapositionworkingwiththepublic.AccordingtoMs.Barry,Ms. BadgerthenrespondedthattheHospitalwasunawarethatthegrievor's problemwaswithherimmunesystembecausetheyknewverylittle aboutherdiagnosis.ItwasatthismeetingthatMs.Badgerstatedthat thegrievorwasnot"owed"anaccommodationbytheHospitalbecause herabsencewasnotduetoaworkplaceinjuryandwasnotaWSIB claim.AccordingtoMs.Barry,Ms.Badgeralsoaskedthegrievorifshe "wouldn't"or"couldn't"returntoworkfulltimeina"snotty, condescendingtone".Furthermedicalinformationwasnotrequestedat thismeeting. Ms.BarrygaveevidenceaboutherattendanceattheHospitalon September18,2003withMr.Stewartandthegrievor.Ms.Badgerhadto bepagedandwhenshemettheminthehallwayshesaidthattheywere mistakenaboutthedateofthemeeting.Mr.StewartaccusedMs.Badger ofa"stalltactic"regardingthegrievor'sneedforanaccommodation. AccordingtoMs.Barry,Ms.Badgertoldthegrievorthatshewasnotsick andshedidnotneedanaccommodation.Ms.Vardypromptlyleftthe Hospital.Therewasnorequestforfurthermedicalinformationatthis time. Ms,BarryattendedtheSeptember28th,2003meetingbutthegrievor didnot,Ms.Badgersaidthatthemeetingcouldnotcontinuewithoutthe grievorbutMr.Stewartsaidthepartiesshouldattemptagreementon anaccommodationforworktwotothreedaysperweekatthe laboratoryinBurke'sFalls.HesaidMs.Vardyshouldbepaidather 40 regularrateofpayfortheworkbutatsomepointitwouldbe appropriateforhertobepaidasalabtechnician.AccordingtoMs. Barry,shortlyafterthesecommentsMs.Badgerannouncedthatthe meetingwasover. Theinstantgrievancewasfiledshortlyafterthismeetingandtherewas neveragrievancemeetingheldnorwasthereanyformalemployer response.Ms.Barrystatedthatatnopointafterthefilingofthe grievancedidanyonefromtheHospitalraiseaproposalforareturnto workforMs.Vardy.TherewasneverawithdrawaloftheUnion's requestforanaccommodationasfarassheknew. Ms.Barrytestifiedthatitwaspossibleforthegrievortohaveworkedin thelaboratoryatBurk'sFalls.lobpostingsforLaboratoryTechnicians usuallyincludedtheabilitytoworkattheBurk'sFallssite.Afterajob postinginthefallof2004Ms.BarrywrotetoKarenWrightinHuman ResourcesandLouiseParrot,ChiefOperatingOfficer,suggesting"a possibleaccommodationforLindyVardy."Shewentontoexplainthat theparttimeworkwouldbeagoodopportunityto"introduceLindy backintotheworkplaceonaparttimebasis."Shenotedthatthe arrangementwouldhavetobesubjecttothegrievor'sapprovalbut hopedthatsomethingcouldbemanaged.Ms.Barryspokeaboutthe differencesbetweentheworkperformedbyatechnologistanda technician.Techniciansdrawblood,performECGsandperformclerical dutieswhileaTechnologistdoesallthetestingandalltasksalso performedbytheTechnician.Ms.Barrygotanemailafewdayslater 41 fromMs.ParrotsayingthatshewaswaitingtohearfromHuman Resources.However,therewasneveranyfollowuptothissuggestion. Thepositionwasfilledwithnofurtherdiscussionbetweentheparties. Ms.Barrydidnotrecallifsheeverdiscussedthispositionwiththe grievornordidshefollowupwiththeHospitalwhentheyfailedto respond. Therehavebeeninstancesofmedicalandtechnicalstaffbeing accommodatedinclericaljobsaccordingtoMs.Barry.Indeed,therehas beenatleastoneinstancewheretheaccommodationbecame permanent, Ms.Barryalsotestifiedaboutthe"manual"worksuggestedbytheUnion asapossibleaccommodationforthegrievor.Therearemanymanuals thatsetoutpoliciesandproceduresforthelaboratory.Thereviewand upkeepofthesemanualsisa"neverendingchore"becausethings changeinthelaboratorysuchasnewinstrumentsusedornewreagents used.Whenthesechangesoccurtheoldprocedureshavetobe completelyrevised. Ms.Barryspokeofotherworkwithinthelabthatcouldhaveformed partofanaccommodatedpositionforMs.Vardy.Aroundthefallof2003 thelabwasbecomingcomputerizedandtherewasmuchneedfor clericalwork.Inthefallof2004therewasabouttwodaysperweekof clericalworktobedoneandthatneedcontinuesinMs.Barry'sview. Further,in2004varioustechnologistsweretakenoffthebenchand ¢2 assignedtoupdatethemanuals.Noneofthetechnologistswho performedthatworkwerebeingaccommodated.Ms.Barryalsostated thattherewasaneedforaqualityassurancepersonandthiswork couldhavebeendonebythegrievor.Therewasalsoworkavailablein 2004incytologyforthepreparationofspecimensthatwaswithinthe grievor'sability. Incross-examinationMs.BarrywasremindedthatMs.Vardyfileda grievanceinMarchof2003allegingthatshewasimproperlydenied LongTermDisabilitybenefits.Areviewofthecorrespondence throughoutthisperiodwasundertakenwithMs.Barry. Afterreceivingthegrievance,Ms.BadgerwrotetoMr,Stewartand suggestedthat"giventheuniquenatureofthisgrievance,wewouldlike tosuggestthatthedecisionofthemedicalappealprocessbethe decidingfactorinthecaseratherthanresortingtoanarbitration process,"InresponseMr,Stewart,inaletterdatedMarch20,2003 advisedtheHospitalasfollows: ThepartiestotheCollectiveAgreementhavecontemplatedthe probabilityand/orpossibilitythatthematterofadifferenceof opiniongivingrisetoagrievancewithregardtothedeclinationof anapplicationforlong-termdisabilitycouldorwouldarise.This factisaxiomaticinthespecificlanguageoftheCollective Agreement.Iamnotempowerednorinclinedtodivertfromthe intentionsoftheparties.Assuch,Iexpecttheemployertocomply withthetermsoftheCollectiveAgreementinamannerthatis consistentwiththepurposeandtimelinesprovisionssetout therein. Itrustthisissufficientlyclearforyourneeds, 43 OnApril11,2003Ms.BadgerrespondedtoMr.Stewartandcandidly saidthat: Quitehonestly,Iamnotsurewhatthenextstepshouldbeif OPSEUdoesnotagreetoacceptthedecisiononentitlementfrom themedicalappealprocessratherthanmovingthroughthe grievanceprocess.Icanassureyouthattheorganizationhas recognizedMs.Vardy'ssituationandhasmadeeveryattemptto assistheralongtheway,howeverthefinaldecisiononlong-term disabilityentitlementliessolelywiththeinsurancecarrierand theirmedicalstaff.AHSisnotpriWtothemedicaldocumentation associatedwiththisclaimhowevm;weareawarethatthe insurancecarrierisreviewingthecurrentinformationthatwas providedtothembyMs.Vardyandherphysician(s)andthatthe righttoappealisinplaceuntilMay13,2003. WiththissaidAHSdoesrecognizeMs.Vardy'srighttogrieveand ifyoufeelmeetingtodiscussthisfurtherwouldbeofbenefitto Ms.Yardy,thenbyallmeanswearepreparedtodoso. Mr.StewartrespondedonMay14,2003,saying,inpart: Notwithstandingthecurrentgrievancearbitrationprocessbeing pursuedbytheUniononbehalfofMs.Vardywithrespecttothe denialofLTDbenefits,Iamseekingameetingtodiscussthe optionsrelativetoprovidingMs.Vardywithaworkplace accommodation. ThisaccommodationwouldbepursuanttotheOntarioHuman RightsCodetakingintoaccountwhatIwillcharacterizeasa poisonedworkenvironment.Iappreciatethatthislatter characterizationwillneedtobereviewedhowever,Iamconfident thatonceyouoryourrepresentativehavebeenapprisedofthe factsyouwillagreewiththeneedtoencompassthiselementinto suchanaccommodation. Ms.Barryagreedthattheaboveletterwaswrittenfollowingameeting heldwiththegrievorandMr.Stewart.Itcontainsthefirstmentionofa 44 poisonedworkenvironment.ThenextformaldiscussionwasattheJune 27,2003meetingheldtodiscusstheSARSpositions. Ms.BarryagreedthatthediscussiononJune27,2003toucheduponthe 2001motorvehicleaccidentandaboutthepoisonedworkenvironment allegations.Sherecalledthegrievorsayingthatshewasnotpreparedto workinthephysicalenvironmentofthelaboratorybecauseofthe poisonedworkenvironmentandthatshewouldnot"putupwith"the behaviorofMr.Palmer.Ms.BarrysaidthattheUnionwantedany contactbetweenthegrievorandMr.Palmertobeminimalandthat wouldhavebeenaccomplishedwiththeSARSscreeningdeskposition. Ms.BarrydidrecallthattherewasdiscussionattheJuly25,2003 meetingaboutthegrievortakingtheSARSscreeningdeskpositionand grievingtheissueofappropriatecompensation,However,itwasnever furtherexploredbytheUnionandMs.Barrydidnotknowthereasons forthatdecision, Ms.Barrywasaskedincross-examinationaboutthe"nonmeeting"of September18,2003.SherecalledthatMr.Stewartbeganthe conversationby"stronglystating"thattheHospitalwasusingstalling tactics.Hewas"probably"angryandMs.Badgerwas"defensive"inher response.AfterthisdiscussionwasmovedintoMs.Badger'sofficeMr. StewartalsosaidthatitwasinsultingtotheUniontoina"cubby-hole" ofanoffice.Ms.Barrywasevasiveaboutanynegativecharacterization 45 ofMr.Stewart'sbehaviour,however,uponurging,sherecalledthatthe conversationwas"intense"andthatMr.Stewartwas"passionate". Ms.BarryagreedwiththeassertionthatiftheEmployeragreedto accommodatethegrievoratBurk'sFallsthehoursofthenon-unionized Techniciansworkingtherewouldhavedecreased.Shewasoftheview thatgiventheircasualstatustheHospitalcouldchangetheirshift arrangements.Shealsorecalledthattherewasanagreementbetween theHospitalandtheUniontofillthegrievor'spositiononapermanent basissubjecttovariousconditionsintheeventthatMs.Vardyreturned towork. WhenMs.Barrywasaskedtobespecificaboutthetimingofwhenthe Unionraisedthematterofpossibleworkwithrespecttothemanuals shecouldnot.Sheknewofnocorrespondencesettingoutanyaspectof thispossibleaccommodationandsimplycouldnotrecallthetimingor anyspecificsregardinganysuchdiscussion. Ms.Barrywasaskedabouttheamount,typeandschedulingofthework performedonthemanualsforthe0.L.A.Sheagreedthatsomeofthe workwasassignedonWednesdayswhentherewasextrastaffavailable. Further,sheconcededthattherewasa"burstofactivity"foralimited periodoftimebutnotedthattheseburstswouldhappenfromtimeto time. 46 Ms,BarrywasaskedabouttheinvestigationthattheHospitalundertook inresponsetothegrievor'sallegationsofapoisonedworkenvironment, Mostofthelaboratorystaffwasinterviewedinaprocessthattookmany hoursoveranumberofweeks,TwoUnionpeoplewereinvitedtoand didparticipate,OneRegional0PSEUBoardmemberattended throughouttheprocessandDonStewartattendedwhenMs.Vardywas interviewed,ShelearnedoftheHospital'sultimateconclusionthatthere wasnopoisonedworkenvironmentbutthatfindingdidnotchangeher viewthatanyaccommodationforMs.Vardyhadtoincludeminimal contactwithMr,Palmer. Inherevidence,Ms.BarrydisagreedwiththeHospital'sconclusions aftertheinvestigation.ShehadwitnessedMr.Palmer"bangingaround, andputtinghishandsonpeopleincludingthegrievor".Shedidnotthink thathedidthiswithmen,Sheneveroverheardanyinappropriate statements.Shestatedthatshethoughttheworkplacewaspoisoned becauseitwaspoorlymanaged.ShethoughtMr,Palmerlikedto"put staffagainststaff'and"putunionagainstnon-union".Indeed,Ms.Barry hadalitanyofcomplaintsthatsubstantiatedherviewthatthe workplacewaspoisonedsuchasalackofpromptresponsetoproblems andvacationrequests;poorworkschedules;favouritism;andlackof seniorpositionsgiventowomen.Aftersettingouttheseissuesshe agreedthathercomplaintswereprimarilyregardingpoormanagement, Further,sheconcededthatthetouchingofpeoplehasstopped. 47 WhenMs.Barrywascross-examinedaboutherevidenceregarding otheraccommodations,sheagreedthatshedidnotknowthemedical conditionsorrestrictionsthatwereinvolvedinthoseaccommodations. TheUnionhadthreeLaboratoryTechnologiststestify,Theysetouttheir normaldutiesandresponsibilities,Ms,MaryEllenHopeisaLab Technologist-SeniorTechnologistintheCytologyLabwhowasbeenat thehospitalforapproximatelytwenty-eightyears,Shetestifiedthat someofherdutieswereexpandedin2004causingsomeofherworkto beperformedinthemorgue,Thisincreaseinworkloadcausedthe hiringofacasualTechnologistwhowasassignedsomeofthiswork whichcontinuestothepresent,ThiscasualTechnologistworkstwoto threedaysperweekandcertainlyperformsmanyothertasks,Ms,Hope estimatedthatthisparticularworktakesabouttwohoursperday,She alsotestifiedabouttheongoinghutsomewhat"sporadic"workshedoes tokeepmanualsupdated.Shesupposedthistookabouttwohoursper week, Ms.Hopetookaone-daycoursein2005thatgavehertheskillsneeded tocreateatransportationmanual,Sheestimatedthattheworkonthis manualtookabouteightyhoursoftimethoughthattimewasspreadout overalongerperiod,ShethoughtotherTechnologistswouldhavebeen abletoputthetransportationmanualtogetherordothecomputer inputtingworkfortheupdatingofthecytologymanual. 48 Ms.HopealsoworkedonupdatingoftheCytologymanualandthat worktookmoretime.Thisupdatingwasnecessaryforthepurposesof accreditation.Sheworkedadayaweekoverapproximatelyfivemonths. Mr.RossAdamsisaSeniorTechnologistintheChemistrylab.Heand anotherTechnologist,DarleneRossbottomworkedontheupdatingof manualsfortheOntarioLaboratoryAccreditation.Theyworkedwith anoutsideconsultantforabouttwomonthsonafulltimebasis.Once theconsultantdevelopedtheframework,Mr.Palmerassignedthework toMr.AdamsandMs.Rossbottom.Eachhadanaverageofadayper weekbuiltintotheirscheduleforthespecificpurposeofupdatingthe variouslabmanualsleavingotherstobescheduledtodotheirusual benchwork.OftenthismanualworkwouldbedoneonaWednesday becausethelabwasoftenoverstaffedonthatday.Mr.Adamstestified thatheworkedadayperweekonthemanualsfromapproximately Octoberof2005untiltheOLAinspectioninSeptemberof2007.Heand otherTechnologistsstillperformOLAworktwiceamonthonaverage. Copiesofworkscheduledfrom2001uptoandincluding2008were provided.OLAdayswerespecificallyassignedonthoseschedules.In crossexaminationMr.Adamsconcededthattheschedulesasprovided werenotanaccuratereflectionofwhatactuallyhappenedinthefallof 2003. Mr.AdamswasoftheviewthatanygeneraldutyTechnologistcould havedonethisworkgiventhathehadnoexperiencepriortobeginning 49 thework.Mr.AdamssaidthatwhileMr.Palmerattemptedtoschedule theOLAworkdaysonaWednesdaythiswasnotalwayspossible. PriortotheEmployercallingitsevidence,thepartiesagreedtoenter certainexhibits.OnewasthePhysician'sStatementofDisabilityfor HospitalofOntarioPensionPlanbenefitsfilledoutbyDr.J.Reynolds.At thetimethisdocumentwasenteredthepartiesstipulatedthatifthe grievorwasaskedshewouldsaythatshefilledoutthetopsectionofthe exhibitsettingoutherpersonalinformationandthenshefaxedthe documenttoDr.Reynolds.Shelaterhadabrieftelephoneconversation withhimbutwasnotexaminedbyhimforthepurposeofhisfillingout thephysician'sstatement.DuringthattelephonediscussionDr. Reynoldsaskedthegrievorifshewasselfmedicatingandsheanswered intileaffirmative.Hemayhaveaskedherhowshewasfeelingandshe mayhaveansweredthatshewas"thesame".Inadditiontosettingout diagnosisandashortdescriptionofsymptoms,Dr.Reynold'sindicated thatMs.Vardywouldbeunabletoworkinherownoranyother occupationbecauseof"severityofpainandfatigue;anddifficultyin copingwithstress;anddifficultyinconcentration".Hechecked"no"to thequestion"wouldvocationalcounselingorrehabilitationresultina returntogainfulemployment?"Theareasoffunctionallimitationwere listedasmoodchanges;equilibrium;copingwithstress;exertion; standing;memoryandthinking;concentration;stamina;lifting;and pain.ThisstatementwassignedanddatedonJanuary26,2005. 50 TheEmployer'sfirstwitnesswasMs.TraceyBadgerwhoisnowthe HumanResourceCoordinatorforFairvernNursingHomebutwasa HumanResourceAssistantwiththeHospitalfrom1998until2004. DuringthattimeshehadasplitrolewithherotherdutiesasExecutive AssistanttotheExecutiveDirector.InhercapacityasHumanResource AssistantsheworkedwithMs.KarenWrightwhowastheDirector. Ms.BadgerrecalledreceivingaresignationfromMs.Vardyinthespring of2002.ShortlyafterreceivingthisdocumentMs.Badgerhadameeting withthegrievorinherofficetodiscusstheavailabilityofsickleaveand variousbenefitsavailableastheresultofbeingafulltimeemployee.Ms. Badgersuggestedtothegrievorthatthesebenefitsbeutilizedrather thanresigning.Therewasnosignificantdiscussionaboutwhathealth issuesthegrievorwasexperiencingbecause"Ms.Vardywasavery privateperson."Thegrievordidnotraiseanypersonalreasonsfor wantingtoresign.Shealsodidnotmentionapoisonedwork environment.ShortlyafterthatmeetingMr.Palmerreceivedarequest datedJune11,2002,foraneighteen-monthleaveofabsence"dueto healthandpersonalreasons."TwoweekslaterMr.Palmerwrotetothe grievorwithanoutlineofvariousoptionsincludingshorttermsick leaveandlongtermdisabilitybenefits.Itwassuggestedthatsheshould exerciseyoursickbenefitsduringanyillness.Itwasnotedthather physician"willneedtoprovidetheappropriatedocumentationthatis requiredineachstepintheprocesstoreceivebenefitsandmaintain yourpositionatAlgonquinHealthServices."Mr.Palmeralsosaid,in part: $1 Yoursecondletterrequestsaleaveofabsenceforaperiodof eighteenmonths(July1,2002tillDecember31,2003).Thelength oftherequestmakesitdifficulttoapprove.Withtheemployment marketasitis,extendedtemporarypositionsarethemost difficulttorecruitto.Thelengthofyourrequestedleavewillalso requireyourretrainingthusdelayingyourfullimplementation backintothelaboratoryworkforce. However,youarealong-termemployeeandavaluablemember ofourLaboratoryTeamandwewouldliketoseeyoureturnto yourposition.Withthisinmind,wearegrantingyouandunpaid leaveofabsencebeginningJuly1,2002toDecember31,2002 inclusive.Aleaveofabsenceformisincludedforyourcompletion. Thisformwilltellusyourintentionswithrespecttoyourbenefits duringyourleaveandshouldbereturnedtoHumanResourcesas soonaspossible. Ifthisleaveshouldbebetterclassifiedassicktime,weare preparedtodoso. t,l.i AccordingtodocumentsreviewedbyMs.Badger,Ms.Vardyreceived shorttermsickleavebenefitsuntilJuly14,2002andthensheapplied forEmployerInsurancesickbenefits.ShenextappliedforLongTerm Disabilitybenefits.DuringthistimeMs.Badgerwasnotinvolvedwith thegrievor.Whenthegrievor'sLTDclaimwasdeniedagrievancewas filed.However,theHospitalwantedtoresolvethedisputeinaccordance withtheMAP(MedicalAppealProcess)setoutintheCollective Agreement, DuringthecourseofherevidenceMs.Badgertestifiedaboutthe relationshipbetweenherselfandMr.DonStewart,Shesaidthatinallof herexperienceshehadneverexperiencedanythingakintothe disrespectfultreatmentthatsheandotherHospitalofficialsreceivedat thehandofMr.Stewart,Shesaidhewasbelligerent,rudeandloudand $2 thathewouldraisehisvoicewhendiscussingmattersinpublic. AccordingtoMs.BadgerMr.Stewarttoldherthatshehad"nothingof valuetosay".Shesaidthatasthemattergrewinintensityit"wasalmost impossibletoengageinsimplecommunication"withhimandindeedit gottothepointthatshewasafraidtomeetwithhimalone.Shethought someofthisanimositywasaimedatherastheresultofanearlier difficultsituationthatarosewithMs.Wrightandlocalunionofficials. Ms.Badgerwasaskedaboutthegrievor'sWSIBclaim.Shesaidthefirst sheheardofanaccidentwaswhenshesawaletterfromDonStewart datedMay14,2003.Afterobtainingfurtherinformationshefilledout theEmployer'sportionofthepaperworkforthatclaim.InJuneof2003 whenshewasfillingouttheWSIBformregardingMs.Vardy'sclaim fromthemotorvehicleaccidentin2001,Ms.Badgerwrotethatshedid notdoubttheaccidentoccurredbutshedid"doubttheinjury-never previouslyreported."Shetestifiedthatshedoubtedinjurysimply becausenoinjurywasreportedatthetime.Shethoughtitlikelythatif therehadbeenaninjuryitwouldhavebeenreportedinatimely fashion. Ms.Badgertestifiedaboutthemeetingthattookplaceonlune27,2003. Ms.WrightaccompaniedherandthegrievorhadMr.StewartandMs. Barryattendatthemeeting.Thegrievorwasofferedanaccommodation attheSARSscreeningdeskbutdidnotseeminterestedaccordingtoMs. Badger.TherewasdiscussionabouttherateofpayandMs.Badgertold theUnionthatshebelievedthatsomearrangementcouldbereached. 53 Therewasalsodiscussionabouttheneedforafunctionalabilities evaluationandfurtherinformationregardinghowmanyhourscouldbe worked.ShortlyafterthismeetingshereceivedaletterfromDr. BraniganstatingthatMs.Vardycouldreturntoworkongraduated hoursandthatsheshould"undergonosignificantheavyliftingor physicallabour"andthatbreakseveryhourmightbeneeded. AccordingtoMs.Badger,theSARSscreeningpositionwasatemporary positionthatrequiredansweringquestionsfromthepublicand determiningwhethermembersofthepubliccouldenterthehospital. TheHospitalhaddeterminedthatthepositionwastobepaid$11.50. Indeed,itwasthisamountthatwaspaidtomostoftheuniversity studentswhodidthework.Forthisreason,itisthewagethatwas offeredtothegrievor.Similarworkwhichinvolvedthefittingofmasks wasalsoperformedbyanursewhowasbeingaccommodated. AtthemeetingofJuly25,2003,therewasfurtherdiscussionoftheSARS deskposition.Ms.Vardydidnotwanttodiscussanorientationanddid notwanttoworkattheSARSdeskaccordingtoMs.Badger. Ms.BadgersaidthatsheknewatleastasearlyastheJune27thmeeting thatthegrievordidnotwanttoworkinthevicinityofMr.Palmer.She recalledthattherewerenospecificfactsaboutanallegedpoisoned workenvironmentraisedduringthesemeetingshutthegrievor's reluctancetoworkwithMr.Palmerwasgenerallydueto communication,schedulingand"personalspace"issues. 54 Ms.BadgerrecalledherdiscussionwithMr.Stewart,Ms.Barryandthe grievoronSeptember18,2003,Shewascalledoutofaneducational sessionandfoundtheminthehall.Sheindicatedthatthemeetingwas actuallyscheduledforthe28thandnotthe18tl',Sherecalledthatintheir relativelyshortdiscussionshequestionedthesincerityofthegrievor's desiretoreturntotheworkplace.Afterthegrievorleftthediscussion Mr.Stewartwas"loud,rudeandbelittling."Shebroughtthemeetingto anendasshewasscheduledelsewhere. TheSeptember28th,2003meetingtookplaceinMs.Badger'soffice.She recalledthatitwas"awful".Thegrievordidnotattend.Sheotherwise hadlittlerecallofthemeetingexceptthatanumberofmatterswere discussed.ShortlyafterthemeetingshereceivedafaxedletterfromMr. Stewartthatstated: Furthertothescheduledmeetingheldtodaywhichlastedallof10 minutes,myobservationsandconclusionsare: Itismyviewthatitwasunprofessionalofyoutoconduct suchameetingthathadbeenpre-scheduledforweeksin yourpersonal"small"officewithananticipatedattendance of3bargainingunitindividualsalongwiththeEmployer's representatives. YourcontentionthatMs.Vardy"has"toattend notwithstandingtheletterprovidedtoyoufromMs.Vardy relativetoherconfirmationoftheUnionrepresentationis inmyview,givenourpreviousmeetings,entirelywithout merit.Thisviewissupportedgiventherationaleprovided toyouwhichreflectedMs.Vardy's"feelings"inthisregard. Further,theEmployer'scontinuingprocrastinationsandits failuretorespondtotheparticularshasfurtherconvinced 55 Ms,VardyandtheUnionthattheEmployerandyoudonot takethissituationseriously, ItisfurthermyviewthatthisEmployerissimplypayinglip servicetotheprocessandbywayofthesetacticsistryingto weighdownMs.Vardy'sresolveinherattemptstoget justiceandfairplay, Ipresentedaworkplaceaccommodationsuggestion/planto youbutgivenyourresponseandactionsIamnowonbehalf ofMs,Vardyproceedingtopursuethismatterbywayof formalgrievanceswithrespecttothepoisonedwork environmentallegationsandthefailureoftheEmployerto dealwithandprovideaworkplaceaccommodation. Iregretthenecessityofthisletterandtheneedtopursue litigationonallofthemattersbeforeus,However,Ihave concludedthatthisEmployer'sstrategyistogivetheiremployees andtheirUnionshortshriftanddisrespectonseriousmattersof concernandassuchpleasebeadvisedthatastheBargaining AgentIintendtopursuealloftherightsandentitlementsofour memberswithduediligence. Ms.Badgergaveevidenceaboutdiscussionsshewasinvolvedinafter theHospitalreceivedthegrievor'swrittenallegationsregardingsexual harassment.Itwasdecidedthataninvestigationwouldhaveto undertakenandaprocesswasestablishedtofacilitatesuchareview. OnOctober29,2003Ms.Badgerwrotetothegrievorregardingthe investigationthatwasabouttobeundertakenastheresultofher complaints.Dateswereofferedforherinterviewinthisregard.An independentinvestigatorhadbeenhiredandanOPSEUofficialwas invitedtoanddidattendalloftheinterviewstoobservetheprocessand ensurefairnessandintegrity.Questionsweredevelopedandaskedof thelaboratorystaff.Allparticipantswereensuredofconfidentialityand $6 toldtheycouldstoptheirsessionatanytime.Itwasdifficultforall, accordingtoMs.Badger.Shesaidthatstaffwassurprisedbythenature ofsomeofthequestions,Mr.Palmerwasinterviewedtwicebecausethe grievorraisedsomeissuesinherinterviewthatrequiredclarification. Onlyonestaffdeclinedtoparticipate,Aftertheinvestigationwas concludedthegrievorwassentaletterwiththeEmployer'sconclusions. Incross-examinationMs.Badgerwasaskedwhether,givenvarious commentsmadeincorrespondence,itwascleartoherthatMr.Stewart wasattemptingtoworkwiththeHospitaltogetanappropriate accommodationforthegrievor.Shesaidthatshedidnotdoubtthathe wantedtoworkonbehalfofhismemberbutthattheuseofbullying tacticsandfoullanguagemadeitdifficult.Ms.Badgersaidthathewasa "horriblemanwhosaidhorriblethings"andthathewasnot representingthegrievorwellbyfocusingonmatterssuchasthe locationofmeetingsratherthantheparticularsofapossible accommodation.Whenaskedwhysheendedaparticularmeeting prematurelyMs.Badgersaidthatshedidnotrecallinsistingthatthe meetingcometoanend.However,sherecalledfeelingthatshewasnot goingto"bespokentointhatmanner"anylongerandbecauseasthe onlyEmployerrepresentativeshedidnotfeelsafe.Infurtherquestions aboutthismeetingshesaidthatshehadneverbeforeorsincehada meetingtodiscussareturntoworkplanwithouttheemployeein attendanceandthatitwasveryimportantfortheaffectedemployeeto bethere.Aninabilitytoattendatameetingleadstotheviewthatthe employeeisunabletoreturntowork. 57 Itwasthislackofrespectthat,inpart,causedabreakdownof communicationbetweenthepartiesaccordingtoMs.Badger.She concededthattherewasaseriesofgrievancestowhichtheEmployer neverreplied.Thisfailureitselfbroughtaboutthefilingofitsown grievance. Ms.BadgerwasaskedaboutMr.Stewart'sletterofAugust7,2003 whichstatedthatinarecentmeetingbetweenthepartiesthathedid notattend,"theEmployerapparentlystatedthatitwasnotobligedto provideaworkplaceaccommodationinaccordancewiththeOHRC becausethemedicalconditiongivingrisetotheaccommodationrequest wasnotworkrelated."Shesaidthathercommentatthemeetinghad notbeenasstatedbyMr.Stewartandthatithadbeentakenoutof context. Ms.BadgersaidthattheEmployermadeanofferofanaccommodation attheSARSscreeningdeskanditwasdeclined.Thegrievorrefused orientation.Ms.Vardyseemedtothinkitwasapositionwithoutvalue andshealsohadconcernsaboutbeingexposedtogerms.Ms.Badger wasoftheimpressionthatthegrievorthoughtthe"wholeideawas distasteful." TherewerequestionsposedtoMs.Badgeraboutthedisputebetween thepartiesregardinghowmany,ifany,attemptsweremadebythe grievortoreturntowork.Ms.Badgeragreedthatshecouldnotbesure 58 ifthegrievorattemptedtoreturntoworkbeforeJune2002whenshe becameinvolvedinthismatter,howeverthepayrollrecordsdonot indicateanyreturntowork, Mr.BryonPalmerwastheManageroftheLaboratoryatAlgonquin Hospital(Huntsville)sinceAugustof1997.SinceFebruaryof2006heis theManageroftheLaboratoryatthemergedfacility.Hehadworked previouslyattheHuntsvilleHospitalbutleftin1992toworkelsewhere inamanagerialrole.AtthebeginningofhisevidenceinchiefMr.Palmer wasaskedtoreviewthegrievor'sletterdatedAugust1,2003outlining herallegations.Inanswertodirectquestions,hedeniedeachofthe assertedimproprieties.Heconcededthathehasatendencytotalkto peopleabouttheirvehiclesandhethereforemaywellhavetoldMs. Vardythathewasjealousofhernewtruck.Headamantlydeniedhaving toldthegrievorthatsheshouldbewareofherfellowlabworkers regardingtheuseofpoisonincoffeewhitener.Whileherecalledthe scenarioaboutaparticularresearchprojectthatwasreviewedduring theeducationalsessiontheytookattheMitchenerInstitute,hedidnot issueanywarnings.Hethoughtitpossiblethathesaidtheywouldhave towatchtheircoffeeorthathewasgladthattheywerenotdoing researchattheirlab. Mr.Palmerwasaskedaboutthesituationdescribedbythegrievor abouthisinabilitytointerveneina"longstandingconflict"betweenher andaco-worker.Herecalleda"pushingmatch"betweenthegrievorand anotheremployeethatoccurredsometimein2000.Equipmentwas 59 pushedandvoiceswereraisedinanexchangebetweenthetwoandhe investigated.Afterspeakingwithbothheissuedaletterofreprimandto eachofthem,Hehadnorecallofanyaccusationofthegrievorstealing fromanyone. Mr.Palmertestifiedthathewasinthegrievor'struckinthesummerof 2001whenshewasrear-endedandthattheyhadbeentravellingto takeaneducationalcourseinToronto.HerecalledthatheaskedMs. Vardyifshewantedhimtoaccompanyhertospeakwiththepolice.He congratulatedherfornotdrivingintothecarinfrontofhertruckand shetoldhimthatshehadseenthevehiclecomingtowardtheminthe rearviewmirror.Noonecomplainedofaninjuryandnoincidentreport waswrittenatthehospitalbecausethegrievordidnotwanttodoso. Mr.Palmerdidinformhissupervisoroftheaccidentshortlyafterit happened.WhenMr.Palmeraskediftherewasanythingshewantedthe Hospitaltohelpwith,suchasthedeductibleportionofherinsurance, Ms.Vardydeclinedandsaidthatitwasaprivatematterandshewould dealwithit.AtnopointintimedidthegrievoreverinformMr.Palmer thatshewasinjuredastheresultofthisaccident. Mr.Palmerwasaskedtoreviewtheresponsesthathegaveduringthe investigationintothegrievor'ssexualharassmentclaims.Herecalled thathehadanobservertoaccompanyhimduringthequestioning.Also inattendancewereMs.BadgerandMs.McFarlane.Hetestifiedthathe toldMs.BadgerandMs.McFarlanethatthelabspaceistightandso whenhepassespeopleheoftentouchestheirshoulderandsays"excuse 60 me",Hehadnospecificrecallofdoingthiswiththegrievorbut concededthatitwaspossiblethathedidso,Neitherthegrievornor anyoneelseevermadeacomplaintaboutthistohim.Hedeniedthe grievor'saccusationthatthistypeoftouchinghadanysexualinnuendo. Hehadnorecallofthegrievortellinghimthathewasstandingtooclose toherorinvadingherspace.HedidrecallthatMs.Barrymadethis assertionduringaconflictresolutionsessionthatthetwoofthemheld withaconsultant.Thiscounselingprocesstookplaceafterthegrievor hadlefttheworkplace.DuringthesessionheapologizedtoMs.Barry andsaidthattheywouldmeetinalargerarea,nothissmalloffice. Mr.Palmersaidthathisonlyinteractionswiththegrievoroutsideof workwereatvariousemployment-relatedsocialeventssuchas Christmasparties.Hedidseeheronceaftershelefttheworkplacewhen hedeliverednecessaryformstoherhome. Mr.Palmerrecalledwhenhereceivedthegrievor'sresignation.Hesaid thathespokewithI(arenWrightaboutthematterbecausehethoughtit importantthatemployeesutilizesickleavebenefitsandnotresign becauseofillness.Therewasneveranydiscussionaboutwhather personalreasonsforwantingtoresign. Whenthediscussionswereunderwaywiththegrievoraboutapossible accommodationattheSARSscreeningdeskhewastoldtohaveno contact, 61 Mr.Palmertestifiedthatsometimeshortlyafterhisreturntothe Hospitalin1997hegrantedtimeoffforMs.Vardybecauseofa particularpersonaleventinherlife.Yearslatershetoldhimthathehad savedherlifebygrantingthattimeoff. Atsomepointin3.992whenMr.Palmerwascontemplatinghisreturnto theHospitalhemetwiththegrievorandMs.Barrytodiscussthe managerialopeninginthelaboratory.Bothencouragedhimtoapply andreturntotheHospital.Hetestifiedthathethoughtthatitwasnice thatsomeofthestaffwantedhimtoreturn. Inthefallof2003Mr.PalmerhadsomediscussionwithMs.Wright aboutajobthatthegrievorcouldperforminanaccommodatedrole. ThematterofapossiblepositioninthelabatBurk'sFallswasdiscussed withhimbutwasrejectedgiventhegrievor'sexpresseddesirefor limitedexposuretoMr.Palmer.NormallyheattendsatBurk'sFallsonly afewtimesayearunlessthereisaparticularmatterthatmustbe addressedbuthegenerallyspeakstothetechniciansworkingtheretwo tothreetimesperweek.Mr.Palmerthoughtthat,atthetimeofthis discussioninthefallof2003thetechniciansatBurk'sFallshadto performsomedutiesattheHuntsvillesite.Presently,allstaffrotate throughBurk'sFallsexceptthecasualstaff.Therehasnotbeenan increaseinactuallystaffingnumberatBurk'sFalls.Mr.Palmeralso testifiedthattherewasdiscussionin2003thatotheremployeeswould havehadtobedisplacedinordertoaccommodateMs.Vardy. 62 Mr.Palmerwasaskedaboutthemanualsinthelaboratoryandthework donebyvarioustechnologistsinthatregard.Therearemandatory requirementsregardingpoliciesandproceduresandheisinchargeof ensuringthisworkiscompleted.Whenitfirstbecameapparenthow muchworkwasrequiredMr.Palmeraskedforthecreationofan additionalpositiontoberesponsibleforqualityassurance.Thatrequest wasdeniedforfiscalreasonsalthoughsomeadditionalstafftimewas approvedallowingforworkwithaconsultanttosetupaquality program.InlargemeasurethisworkwasundertakenbetweenJanuary andJuneof2004.Mr.Palmeraskedforvolunteersandultimatelyateam ofthreelabemployees,includinghimself,metwiththeconsultant.Ms. RossbottomandMr.Adamswereassignedtheworkthatwasconducted mostlyduringnormalhours.Thelaboratory'sscheduleprovidesfora staffoverlapresultinginanextratechnologistworkingmost Wednesdaysandthesedayswereusedforthispurpose.HoweveLsome overtimewasnecessaryduetothecompressedperiodoftimeforthe project.AfterJuneof2004nofurtherhourswerebudgetedforthis purpose. Theworkinvolvedtransformingpresentmanualsintoanewspecified format.Somenewprocedureswerewrittenduringthisprocess.There isconstantupdatingnecessarythatgoesontopresentthatisperformed byhimselforaseniortechnologistwithaninterestinaparticulararea. TheworkcontinuestobedonemostlyonWednesdaysbutthismight changeifanewpieceofequipmentarrives,forexample. 63 Mr.Palmerreviewedthehiringofthecytologistin2004thatwas necessaWtoassistinthescreeningofcytologyslides.Herworkis approximatelyfivedayspermonth,inadditiontocoveringforsicktime andvacations.Thatworkwastobedoneonaparticularmicroscopeand thereisonlyoneinthedepartment. Incross-examinationMr.Palmerwasaskedaboutthetechnicians workingatBurk'sFallinthefallof2003.Heagreedthattherewereone fulltimeandtwocasualemployeesworkingthereatthetimebutnoted thattheyhadnoguaranteeofhours.Healsoexplainedthatthecasual employeehiredtoworkincytologyin2004washiredbecausethe cytologycaseloadincreasedanditwasdeterminedthatthereneededto beareplacementforthefulltimecytologytechnologist'ssicktimeand vacationtime.Thecasualemployeewasscheduledtowork approximatelyfiveshiftspermonthoveranabovethereplacement shifts.Areviewoftheactualschedulerevealedthatsheworked,on average8to9shiftspermonth.Mr.Palmerdisagreedwithsomeofthe earlierevidencethatthisparttimecytologistassistedwithmanyother labfunctions.Further,healsonotedthatcertainlaboratoryprocesses werediscontinuedwhenaparticularpathologistleftthehospitalin 2005. Incross-examinationMr.Palmerwasaskedabouttheallegedcomments hemadetothegrievor.Hesaidthathedidnotrecallmakinganyofthe statementsalleged.Heexplainedthathedoescommentoccasionallyon people'sappearance,such as mentioning that anew hair cut or to tell 64 someonethattheylooknice,Itwassuggestedtohimthatthegrievor's evidencewascorrectthathetouchedheroften,Mr,Palmerdidnot agreewiththatcontention, Mr,Palmerwasaskedabouttheallegedincidentofblockingthegrievor inaroominthelab.AschematicofthelabwasprofferedandMr, Palmernotedthattherearetwoexitstothatroomandinordertobe abletoblockherhewouldhave"hadtobealmostontopofher",When itwassuggestedtoMr,Palmerthathisdisagreementwiththe allegationsmeantthatMs.Vardymusthavefabricatedthespecific incidentsheansweredintheaffirmativethoughhewasnotsurewhy shewasmotivatedtodoso, Inre-examinationMr,Palmernotedthatthereismuch"paperwork"in thelabandnotallofitisfortheOLAwork,Theseniortechnologistsin variouslabdepartmentsundertakethemajorityofthisnon-OLApaper work, UNIONSUBMISSIONS Giventhedisparateviewsoffactsandissuesbetweenthesepartiesitis notsurprisingthatthesubmissionsofthepartieswereprovidedovera twoandahalfdayperiod.Theargumentsweresubstantialand multifaceted.Thepartieswereindisputenotonlyonthedispositionof thegrievancebutalsoregardingthescopeoftheissuesnecessary beforethisBoardneedingdetermination. 65 Mr.Bohuslawsky,fortheUnion,suggestedthattheHospitalfailedin bothitsproceduralandsubstantivedutytoaccommodatethegrievor. TheUnion'ssubmissionsenvelopedfivethemes.Thosethemeswere: •First,theEmployerhadanongoingdutytoaccommodatethe grievoranditfailedtodoso; •Second,irrespectiveofhowtheEmployer'sview,ithadsufficient medicalatthetimetoprovideanaccommodationforthegrievor; •Third,theEmployerbearsaproceduraldutytoaccommodateand itfellfarshortinthisregard; •Fourth,damagesmustflowforthesignificantEmployerbreaches oftheCollectiveAgreementandHumanRightsCode; •Finally,theEmployermaintainedapoisonedworkenvironment asevidencedbythegrievor'simmediatesupervisorsubjectingher topersistentlowlevelsexualannoyance. Turningtoeachoftheseargumentsinturn,Mr.Bohuslawksybeganby notingthatitistheEmployer'sonustoestablishthesufficiencyofthe stepsittooktoascertainwhetherthegrievorcouldbeaccommodated. TheevidenceheardbythisBoardrevealedthattheEmployer'sprocess waslimitedtotheidentificationandproposingoftheworkperformed attheSARSdesk.Indeed,contrarytotheEmployer'songoingdutyto accommodatethegrievor,itreallymadeonlycursoryeffortsin2003. SpecificallyitdidnotrespondtoanysuggestionsmadebytheUnion eitheraspartoroutsideofthegrievanceprocedure,Evidencewas heardthattheUnionsuggestedLabTechnicianworkattheBurk'sFalls 66 siteandMs.Barrytestifiedthatshesuggestedworkontheoperational manualsandyetnothingbecameofeitherproposal. TheUnionrecalledthatanumberofsenioremployerofficialsvirtually washedtheirhandsofthismatterbecausetheydidnotwanttodeal withtheUnionofficials.EvenwhentherewasachangeinHuman Resourcepersonnelnoeffortwasmadetore-igniteattemptsto accommodatethegrievor.TheHospitalfailedeveninitsrequirementto holdagrievancemeetingonthismatterandthatfailurewasyetanother lostopportunitytodiscussandprovideanaccommodation. TheUnionsubmittedthatwhenthegrievorwasberatedbyMs.Badger inthefallof2003,shejustifiablyfeltshecouldnolongerengagein discussionsandshegavetheUnionrepresentationalrightstospeakon herbehalf.However,theEmployerwasnotcontentwithholding discussionswithoutthegrievor.Thatwasthelastrealeffortitmadeto accommodatethegrievor.Afurthermissedopportunitytofindan accommodationoccurredwhentheEmployerdidnotinviteherto returntothelabonceithadinformedherinearly2004thatits investigationrevealednopoisonedworkenvironment.Laterin2004 anotherchancetoaccommodatethegrievorwasbypassed.Ms.Barry testifiedthatshesuggestedtoMs.ParrotandMs.Wrightthatacasual Technicianpositionbeutilizedforthegrievor.Unfortunately,no responsewasprovided.InNovemberof2004,inaletterfromUnion counsel,anumberofaccommodationsuggestionsweremade.There 67 wasneveranyindicationthattheEmployergaveconsiderationtothe proposals. TheUnioncontendedthatthefactofongoinglitigationdoesnot suspendthedutyofanEmployertoaccommodate,Theparties,nottheir counsel,continuetobearresponsibilitiesinthisregardanditis apparentthattheHospitalmadenofurtherefforts,Also,theevidence revealedsixty-twojobpostingsbetweenJuly102003andNovember28 2008,Noconsiderationwasgiventoaccommodatingthegrievorinto anyofthesepositions,Whileitcannotbesaidthatallofthesepositions wouldhavebeenappropriateforthepurposesofaccommodatingthe grievor,itisapparentthattheHospitalsimplydidnotconsiderthe grievoratanytime. TurningtotheissueoftheSARSdeskpositiontheUnionnotedthat whilethedutytoaccommodatedoesnotrequireanEmployerto maintainthepre-disabilitywages,particularlywherethevalueofthe workisnotsimilar,theEmployerbroughtnegotiationsfortheratetoan abrupthaltandfailedtoexplainwhyastudentratewasappropriate. Thisisnotacasewherethegrievorshouldhave"obeyednowand grievedlater",aswassuggestedbytheHospital.Unlikeinsubordination caseswherethatprincipleiswellestablished,theEmployerisobligedto offerareasonableaccommodation.Ajobwhichmightputatriskan employeewhowasimmunologicallycompromisedandpaystudent wagesfallsfarshortofanypossibledefinitionofareasonable accommodation. 68 RegardingthisareaoftheUnion'ssubmissions,itrelieduponReMcGill UniversityHealthCentrev.Syndicatdesemployesdel'Hopital generaldeMontreal(2007),277D.L.R.(4th)577(S.C.C.);ReCityof CornwallandCUPE(Local3251}(September26,2009)unreported (Keller);ReCentralOkanaganSchoolDistrictNo23v.Renaud (1992),95D.L.R,(4th)577(S.E.C.);ReFenwickAutomotiveand USWA,Local7454(1999),84L.A.C.(4th)271(Kirkwood);andRe Progistics-SolutionsInc.andC.E.P.(June20,2009),unreported (Keller). AddressingtheissueofwhethertheHospitalhadsufficientmedical information,itwasassertedbytheUnionthatthereisnoevidencethat thegrievorfailedtocooperatebywayofappropriatemedical informationwhenitwasrequested.Availableinformationabouta disabilitywillshapetheEmployer'scanvassingofpossible accommodations.TheinformationavailabletotheEmployerwill determinewhatfurtherinquiriesitneedstomake.Inthefactsofthis case,theHospitaldidnotmakefurtherinquiriesandthereasonsappear tobeboundupwithitsmoregeneralfailuretocarryouttheprocedural stepsofaccommodation. ItwasnotedbytheUnionthattheEmployerhasthecontractual authorityatarticle15.11torequestmedicalinformation.Itcouldhave andshouldhavemadefurtherrequests,Inanyevent,theevidence revealedthatonthetwooccasionsinJune2002andlaterinthesummer 69 of2003,whenthegrievorwasaskedforfurthermedicalinformation, shecompliedpromptly. TheUnionarguedthatthemedicalnotefromDr.Wilsonprovidedinthe summerof2002isofimportbecauseitprovidedadiagnosisandnoted thatworkrelatedstresswasanaspectofthegrievor'ssymptoms.Itwas suggestedthatthiscommunicationassistedintheEmployer'sabilityto assessthegrievor'srequestforanaccommodation.Thereweremedical documentsprovidedtotheHumanResourcesdepartmentforthe purposesofthegrievor'sLTDapplication.Inthatpackageaphysician's statementreiteratedthegrievor'sneedforabsencefromtheworkplace duetostressanddepressionsomeofwhichwasrelatedtoherwork. ItwascontendedbytheUnionthatthedocumentssurroundingthe grievor'sapplicationforEmploymentInsuranceareusefulbecausethey indicatetheattitudinalbarrierthatthegrievorandtheUnionwere facedwithintermsofanydealingswithMs,Badger.Inthosedocuments Ms.Badgernotedthatshedoubtedthegrievor'sstatedinjuriesbecause theywerenotpreviouslyreported. TheUnionalsosuggestedthattheHospitalhadsomemedical informationastheresultoftheactionthegrievortookregardingthe failureofLTDpayment,AttheveryleastitknewthattheHospital'sof OntarioPensionPlanfoundthegrievortobepartiallydisabledatsome pointin2005. 7O Inanyevent,theHospitalknewasofthesummerof2003thatthe grievorwasonshorttermabsenceandhadappliedforemployment insuranceandlongtermdisability.TheUnionsubmittedthatthe Hospitalknewthediagnosisandtheessentialsymptomssufferedbythe grievoranditknewshewasabsentfromtheworkplaceforoverayear. FurthebanysuggestionbytheHospitalthatitthoughtanintegralpart ofanyaccommodationmusthaveincludedageographicalseparation fromMr.Palmerwouldnotstanduptoscrutiny.Thegrievorstatedin herevidencethatshehopedthatanaccommodationwouldalleviate bothherphysicalrestrictionsandthesituationwithMr.Palmer.Shedid notstatethatanyaccommodationthatinvolvedMr.Palmerwouldhave beenunacceptable.WhileshewouldhavepreferredtobeatBurk'sFalls wherecontactwithMr.Palmerwouldhavebeenminimized,hewould havecontinuedtobehersupervisorandthiswasunderstoodbythe grievor.Therefore,anyperceptionthatthegrievorand/ortheUnion insistedonnocontactwithMr.Palmerissimplynotcongruentwiththe evidence.Indeed,iftheHospitalthoughttherewasarequestfor absolutelynocontactitcouldhaveandshouldhavestatedthatthe grievorcouldnotbeaccommodatedtothepointofunduehardshipand thatwasneversaid. TileUnionnextturnedtotheEmployer'ssubstantivedutyto accommodate,Itwasassertedthattheevidencehasestablishedthatthe Employercouldhaveandshouldhaveaccommodatedthegrievor,The statedmedicalrestrictionsforatrialreturntoworkinthefallof2003 were,accordingtoDr,Kirwin,avoidanceofshiftwork,noheavylifting 71 andopportunitiesforbreaksandmicrobreakswhenneeded.He testifiedthatareturntofulltimeworkwouldhavebeenpossibleas earlyasFebruaryof2007.Againstthatbackdropvarious accommodationsshouldbeconsidered.Thegrievorcouldhavereturned toworkatBurk'sFallsasaparttimeLabTechnicianwiththose restrictions.Inthenormalcourseofevents,casualemployerperformed thatworkandtheyhadnoscheduledorguaranteedshifts.Accordingly theEmployerwouldnothaveviolatedanyemploymentobligations.In anyeventasofJulyof2004,therewasacasuallabpostingthatcould havebeengiventothegrievor.ThereisnoevidencethattheEmployer consideredthegrievor'srequestforaccommodationregardingthis position.Insteadanewemployeewashiredandworkedforan approximatethree-yearperiod. TheUnionsubmittedthatthesecondaccommodationthatcouldhave andshouldhavebeenofferedtothegrievorwastheworkdoneby variousLabTechnologistsonthemanuals.WorkwasdonefortheOLA butalsoupdatingthemanymanualsinthelaboratory.AlloftheUnion's witnessesagreedthatthegrievorwascapableofdoingthisworknot justforthebloodbankbutfortheotherareasexceptforcytology.Some oftheworkcouldhavebeendoneoffsitewhichwouldhaveminimized contactwithMr.Palmer.Inanyevent,theHospitalagainfailedtoeven considerthegrievorforthiswork.Theworkschedulesindicatedthat therewasaconsiderableamountofthisworkthatcouldhavebeen performedbythegrievor. 72 ThethirdaccommodationsuggestedbytheUnionwasregardingthe hiringofacasualtechnologistin2004andworkperformedinthelab suchasthegrossingofspecimens.Mostofthatwork,accordingtothe Union'sevidencecouldhavebeenassignedtothegrievoralthoughshe, liketheincumbentmighthaveneededtraininginsomeareas.Evenif thatemployeewas,asstatedbyMr.Palmer,hiredasacytologist,some ofthosedutiescouldhavebeengiventothegrievor.Between2004and 2007thatcasualemployeeworkedapproximately2500hoursand manyofthosehourscouldhavebeenassignedtothegrievor.Thatwork wasdiscontinuedinthespringof2008. TheUnionsuggestedthatevenwiththisshortlisttherewerereal opportunitiestograntthegrievoraself-containedaccommodated positiondoingnecessaryworkwithinthecompetenceofaLaboratory Techno!ogist.Itappearsinconceivablethattherewasnoopportunityto accommodatethegrievor.YettheEmployerfailedtomakeanyeffort. InthisregardtheUnionrelieduponReADGAGroupConsultantsInc. v.Lane(2008),295D.L.R.(4t:,)425(Ont.Div.Ct.);ReAudetv. CanadianNationalRailway[2006]C.H.R.D.No.24(QL)(Can.H.R. Trib.,Hadjis);ReWilloughbyv.CanadaPostCorp.[2007]C.H,R.D.No. 44(QL)(Can.H.R.Trib.,Lloyd);ReUniversityofWesternOntario andStaffAssociation(2008),17L.A.C.(4th)429(KnopfJ;ReCanada SafewayLtd.andUFCW,Local401(August72007),unreported (McFetridge);ReCityofOttawaandInstituteofProfessional Personnel(February13,2007)unreported(Weatherill);andRe 73 DominionColourCorp.andTeamsters,Local1880(1999),83L.A.C. (4th)330(Ellis). RegardingtheissueofappropriatedamagesfortheEmployer'sbreach oftheOntarioHumanRightsCode,theUnionurgedthatinadditionto generaldamagesaheightenedquantumshouldbeawardedgiventhe egregiousnatureofthebreachinthismatter.Thegeneraldamagesare awardedfortheexperienceofdiscriminationandthedamagetothe grievor'sselfrespect.Aggravateddamagesareastheresultofthewillful infringementofthegrievor'srightsandcausedmentalanguish.Further, itcannotbesufficientlyunderscoredthatthebreachwasongoingfor yearsandvirtuallyvoidofanygenuineeffortfromtheEmployerto accommodate.TheUniontookparticularaimatMs.Badger'sfailureto informherselfoftheEmployer'sobligationsandherhurtfulattacks againstthegrievor.ShetestifiedthattheUnionrepresentativewas "horribleandrude"andyetshethoughtthatherownconductwas appropriate.Areviewoftheevidencerevealedthatsomeofherill advisedstatementsandhermisunderstandingofthelawcauseda deteriorationoftherelationshipthatensureditwouldnevergetback ontrack.Sheverballyquestionedthegrievor'sillnessandthesincerity ofhereffortstoreturntowork.TheUnioncontendedthatMs.Badger's inepthandlingofthismatterandhercontinualprovokingofthegrievor, Ms.BarryandMr.Stewartcausedacompletebreakdownofthe relationshipwhichresultedinthegrievorneverreturningtothe workplace. 74 TheUnionconcededthattheHospitalmighthavethoughtthatMr. Stewartwasabarrier.Ifthatwasthecaseitcouldhavefiledan EmployergrievanceallegingabusesbytheUnion.Inanyevent,ifthe HospitalhadconcernsregardingwithMr.Stewarttheremedywasnot todenythegrievorofherrighttoanaccommodation.Thereisno confluencebetweentheEmployer'sobjectiontoMr.Stewartandits statutorydutytothegrievor.Simplyput,thereisnojurisprudencethat findsthedemeanorofaUnionrepresentativeisafactorinconsidering whethertheUnionbreacheditsowndutytoaccommodate. TheUnionreferredtheBoardtoReCherubiniMetalWorksLtd.v. NovaScotia{AttorneyGeneral)(2007),280D.L.R.(4th)235(N.S.C.A.); ReKetolav.ValuePropaneInc.,[2002]O.H.R.B.I.D.No14(QL)(Out. Bd.Inquiry,Garfield);ReDrummondv.TempoPaintv.VarnishCo., [1999]O.H,R.B.I,D.No.1(QL)(Ont.Bd,Inquiry,Laird);andRe Lapetenguiv.689247OntarioLtd.,[2009]O.H.R.T.D.No1266(QL) (Ont.H.R.Trib.,Eyolfson). RegardingtheallegationsofsexualharassmenttheUnionurgedthatthe grievor'sevidencewastohepreferredoverthatofMr,Palmer.He deniedmakingmostoftheobjectionablecommentsandjustifiedhis behaviourbystatingthathetouchesallpeoplewhenengagedin conversation,notjustwomen.Thegrievor'sevidencewasclearwhile Mr.Palmerwasevasive.Further,ifMr.Palmer'sdemeanorissobenign thatsurelyevidencefromsomeoneotherthanMr.Pahnershouldhave beenproffered. 75 ThisBoardshouldapplyanobjectivetesttothisevidencetheUnion said.Intentionandmotivationarenotdeterminative.Sexualharassment isengaginginacourseofvexatiouscommentsand/oractionswhichare notwelcome.Thisunwelcomebehaviourdetrimentallyaffectsthework environmentorleadstojobrelatedconsequencesforthevictim.The "reasonablewoman"standardshouldbeappliedratherthanthe "reasonableperson"standard.Oncethatstandardisappliedtothefacts athand,afindingforthegrievorisinevitable.Damagesshouldbe awardedandthereareseveralfactorstoconsiderinthatregard. Generallytouchinghasbeenfoundtobemoreseriousthanoffcolour commentsorjokesandintheinstantmatter,thetouchingofthegrievor wasfrequentandoveraprolongedperiodoftime.Mr.Palmerwasthe grievor'smanagerandinapositionofauthorityandthatabuseofpower mustberedressed.Finally,theimpactonthegrievorwassevereboth mentallyandphysicallyassetoutinvariousmedicalreports. TheUnionrelieduponRe]anzenv.PlatyEnterprisesLtd.(1989),$9 D.L.R.(4th)3S2(S.C.(:.);ReStadnykv.Canada(Employmentand ImmigrationCommission[2000]F.C.J,No.122S(QL)(F.C.A.);Re Leachv.CanadianBloodServices,[2001]A,I.No.119(QL)(Alta.Q.B.); ReIKOIndustriesLtd.andUSWS,Local8580(2002),104L.A.C.(4th) 97(Starkman);ReSteevesv.Woody'sPlace,[2007]N.B.H.R.B.I.D.No3 (QL)(N.B.Bd.Inquiry,Filliter);andREBehmv.6-4-1HoldingsLtd. [2008]B.C.H.R.T,D.No.286(QL)(B,C.Bd.Inquiry,Humphreys). 76 Insummary,theUnionrequestedthattheBoarddeclarethatthe EmployerviolatedtheCollectiveAgreementandtheOntarioHuman RightsCode;anawardoftwentyfivethousanddollarsingeneral damagesforthosebreaches;tenthousanddollarsindamagesformental anguish;andfullcompensationforlossofwagesandbenefitsforthe periodsJuly4,2003toJune10,2005andrecommencingonNovember 2006;finally,interestonmoniesowing. EMPLOYERSUBMISSIONS Mr.White,fortheEmployer,beganbyremindingtheBoardofthelong andcomplicatedpaththislitigationhasundergone.Theparties originallyagreedtogivethisBoardthepowersofSection50ofthe LabourRelationsActofOntarioandanumberofsessionswereheld whereinthepartiesattemptedtoresolvetheirdifferences.Whileit happenedthatthegrievancewasultimatelylitigatedutilizingthemore traditionalarbitrationprocess,theBoardcanandshouldtakethe evidenceitheardthroughthemediationprocessintoaccountin arrivingatitsfinaldecision.Indeed,itisimportanttodosobecausethe contextofthosediscussionsisessentialintheevolutionofthisdispute. InparticulartheBoardshouldrecallthattherewassignificantdamage causedtothelabourrelationshipbetweenthesepartiesandthat damagehadanimpactonthehandlingofthismatter.TileEmployer relieduponReZellelManufacturingLtdandCAW,Local1524 (2005),140L,A.C.(4th)377. 77 TheEmployersuggestedthatareviewofthegrievanceitselfshouldbe undertakenattheoutsetofanyconsiderationoftheevidence.The grievanceitselfmakesreferenceonlytothepoisonedwork environment.Throughoutthiscase,theUnionhassoughttoexpandthe grievancetooneregardingafailuretoaccommodatebuttherecanbe littledoubtthat-accordingtotheverywordingofthegrievance-this matterwasaboutMr.Palmer'sallegedsexualharassmentofthegrievor. WhiletheUnionurgedthatthisBoardacceptthatafailureto accommodatehasalwaysbeentheprimaryissueasisapparentfrom therequestedremedy,theEmployercontendedthattheremedial requestonagrievanceformisnotthelocationforsettingoutthe substanceofthedispute. Mr.Whitenotedthatatthesametimethatthegrievorwasseekingan accommodationshealsoraisedtheallegationsofsexualharassment. Indeed,whenthemed]arbprocessbeganthereweretwoother grievancesatissue,Bothrelatedtothegrievor'sclaimfordenialofLong TermDisabilitypaythatpredatedthesummerof2003.Thosetwo grievanceswereultimatelywithdrawnandtheHospitalunderstoodthat theissuebeforethisBoardwaslimitedtothematterofapoisonedwork environment.UpuntilthepointthatthetwoLTDgrievanceswere withdrawntheHospitalwasoftheviewthatthereweretwodistinct processes. TheUnionsuggestedthatthetwoareasofallegeddiscrimination, failuretoaccommodateandsexualharassment,cannotbeconsidered 78 orredressedseparately.ItwastheHospital'ssubmissionthattheissues havealwaysbeeninextricablyinterwovenandthismustbetakeninto accountintheeventthattheBoardagreesthataccommodationisa mattertobedetermined.Indeed,itisalmostimpossibletounderstand thecontextofthiscasewithoutunderstandingthattheUnionproceeded withbothoftheseissuessimultaneously. TheEmployertookissuewiththeUnion'sseparationoftheobligationto accommodateintoproceduralandsubstantiveduties.Amoreholistic approachisappropriateitwasurged.Theprocessofaccommodation shouldbeconsideredasawholeandaflawintheprocessitselfdoes not,inandofitself,causeafindingofafailuretoaccommodatewith liabilityupontheEmployer.Thereisconsiderablejurisprudencethat supportstheideathatflawsinprocessdonotconstitutestand-alone liability.Ininstanceswhentheprocesswasfoundtobeflawedithas beendeterminedthataremedymaybeappropriatebutnotafindingof damages.TheEmployerrelieduponReTorontoBoardofEducation andCUPE,Local4400(April19,2000)unreported(Davie). Theprocessofaccommodationinthiscase,accordingtotheEmployer beganwiththediscussionaboutthegrievorstaffingtheSARSdesk. WhiletheUnionhaslaidthefailureofthataccommodationsolelyatthe feetofMs.Badger,theevidencedidnotsubstantiatesuchaclaim.There wasmuchbackandforthabouttheappropriaterateofpaywithMs. BadgereventuallyinformingMs.Barrythattherateshouldbelessthan ithadbeenbecausetheworkwasnotlessintense.Also,theHospital 79 wasawaitingmedicalclearanceforthegrievortoreturntowork.That eventuallycamebywayofaveryshortnote.Thepartieswereworking onareintegrationintotheworkplaceandduringtheJuly25th2003 meetingwhentheratewasraised,thegrievorstatedshewas dissatisfiedwiththepositionandsaidthatitwouldnotbeworthitfor hertodothejobgiventherateandthepossibleexposuretoillness. Therefore,iftherewasadisputeregardingtherateofpayforthatwork, doesthatfactcausetheHospitaltobeliableforfailuretoaccommodate orshouldtheratehavebeenthesubjectofagrievanceandarbitration? Thegrievoracknowledgedinherevidencethatneithershenoranyone fromtheUnionthoughttoproceedinthisfashion.Inanyevent,ithas beenfoundbyarbitratorsthatalowerrateofpayispermissibleifthe Employerhasreachedthepointofunduehardshipinitsattemptsto accommodatepriortomovingtoalowerratedposition.Inthiscase, therewasnodiscussionaboutthepositionofSARSdeskbeing inappropriateuntiltherateofpaybecameadispute. Alsoregardingthematterofrateofpayforanaccommodatedposition forthegrievorattheSARSdesk,theUnionsuggestedthatanegative inferenceshouldbedrawnbecausetheEmployerfailedtoshowthat othersatthedeskwerereceivinganamountotherthantheirownrate ofpay.TheEmployersubmittedthattheonusisontheUniontoshow thatallotherswereinfactreceivingtheirrateofpayanditfailedtodo so.TheUnioncouldhaveandshouldhavecalledthisevidence.Theonly evidenceheardinthisregardfromtheUnionwasspeculativeinnature andnotsufficientforthisBoard.TheEmployer'sfailuretoproffer 80 evidenceisthisregardisnotdeterminativeandnonegativeinference shouldbedrawn. TheEmployerarguedthatinanyevent,theevidenceisclear.The Employerofferedthegrievoraposition,albeitshortterm,andthe grievor'smedicalnoterevealedthatshecoulddothework.Shedidnot taketheworkandexerciseherrightstodisputetherateofpayandthat cannotbesaidtobethefaultoftheEmployer.TheJuly25tlmeetingwas thebeginningofthebreakdowninrelationshipaboutthe accommodation.Untilthatpointnothingamissoccurred. I I I i TheEmployerdisputedtheUnion'sallegationthatMs.Badgershowed animosityforthegrievorasevidencedbythecommentsmadetoWSIB thatshedoubtedherinjurybecauseitwasnotreportedatthetime.This commentcannotbeelevatedtothelevelofanimus.Indeed,thiswas preciselythetypeofcommentthatEmployersmaketoWSIBiftheysee nocausalconnectionbetweentheclaimandtheinjurystated.Further,it cannotbeforgottenthatitwasMs.Badgerwhoconvincedthegrievor nottoresignbuttotakealeaveofabsencefromwork.BothMs.Badger andMr.Palmerwereinstrumentalinensuringthatthegrievorutilized herrightsandhelpinghertogetthroughadifficulttime. TheEmployeralsoaddressedtheUnionargumentthattheEmployeris liablebecauseofitsfailuretoaskforfurthermedicalinformation.This isamajorpointofdisagreement.Accommodationisalsointendedtobe consultativeandcooperativebetweentheemployer,theunionandthe 81 grievor.Ifthegrievorhadmedicalinformationitwasincumbentupon hertosharethatinformationsothatanappropriateaccommodation couldbedetermined.Thedutytoaccommodateisathree-way obligation.Inthiscase,boththeUnionandthegrievorfailedtoprovide newmedicalinformationwhenitbecameavailable.TheUnionandthe grievorcannotsitupontheinformationandthenrelyuponthefactthat itwasnotrequested.ItisnottheEmployer'sobligationtoask repeatedlyforfurthermedical.Itmaybethatinthiscase,themedical informationwasnotbroughtforwardbecausetheentireprocesshad completelybrokendown,butthatcannotbefoundtobeallthefaultof theEmployer.TheEmployerknewthatthegrievorhadmedicalissues. Itknewthatshehadreceivedherfullentitlementofshort-termsick leaveandthatshehadappliedforLongTermDisability.However,the Employerdidnothavein-depthknowledgeastothegrievor'sdiagnosis orprognosiswhichappearstohaveevolvedovertimeinthiscase.Ms. Badgerdidnothavethegrievor'sLTDapplication.TheUnionshould haveknownthatitwouldhavebeeninappropriatefortheEmployerto havethatinformation.CertainlytheUnionwastoldthisinthespringof 2003whenthepartiesweregoingthroughtheappealprocessfordenial ofLTD. TheEmployernotedthatitshouldnotbeforgottenthatatthesame timethatithadadearthofinformationregardingthegrievor'smedical condition,itwastoldthatanyre-entryintotheworkplacehadto addressthegrievor'spoisonedworkenvironmentallegations,Inaletter fromtheUniononJune10,2003,thesubjectathandwasnolongera 82 failuretopayLTDbenefitsbuttheissueofthepoisonedwork environment.ItwasduringthistimethattheUnionseemedtohave separatedtheissuesofLTDdenialandpoisonedworkenvironment,Itis apparentthattheUnionisattemptingtosetupitsargumentsintwo streamsbutinthesummerof2003,theprimaryissuewasthepoisoned workenvironmentandhowthatwouldimpactanyreturntowork, DuringthistimeitwastheEmployer'sviewthatanyreturntoworkhad toinvolvednocontactwithMr.Palmer,ItwasthoughtbytheEmployer thatitwasnolongerbeingaskedtoaccommodateamedicalcondition buttoaccommodateallegationsmadethathadnotyetbeen investigated.Onceathoroughandfairinvestigationwasundertakenthe grievorwasinformedthatherallegationsofawidespreadproblem witbinthelabwasnotsubstantiatedbutshestilldisagreed.Therewas nocomplaintraisedregardingtheprocessoftheinvestigationandno grievancefiled,Giventhattheinvestigationdidnotsubstantiatea poisonedworkenvironment,thegrievor'srequestforan accommodationwithoutcontactwithMr.Palmerwasunreasonable. WhiletheUnionwouldhavethisBoardfindthattheEmployerwould notconsideranyaccommodationatthispointintheprocess,suchan assertioniswrong,accordingtheMr,White.Therewascorrespondence betweenvariouspeopleincludingcounselthatthematterwouldbe dealtwiththroughthemed/arbprocess.ItwasdiscussedbuttheBurk's FallspositionwasnotacceptabletotheEmployer. 83 TheEmployeragainurgedthatthisBoardcouldtakenotethatduring themediation/arbitrationprocesstherelationshipbetweentheparties wassignificantlystrained.Thetoneofdiscoursewasdeteriorating rapidly.AsattestedbyMs.Badger,treatmentbyUnionrepresentatives wassuchthatfruitfuldiscussionswereal!butimpossible.TheBoard, utilizingitsauthorityunderSection50cancalluponitsownrecallof thevitriolleveledagainstsomeoftheEmployerpersonnelduringthe med/arbprocessbycertainUnionofficials.Whenassessingthe questionastowherefaultliesregardingtheaccommodationandthe poisonedworkenvironmentthisBoardshouldtakeintoaccounthow thepartiesconductedthemselves.Ifaccommodationissaidtobea threewaystreetitmustbesaidthattherewasa"roadblock"butmore faultshouldbelaidatthefeetofUnionpersonnel.TheUnion representativewasaprofessionalwhoshouldhaveworkedto resolutionandhisfailuretodosoeithereliminatesor,attheveryleast, substantiallyreducestheEmployer'sliabilitythroughoutthisprocess. TheEmployerdidnottakeissuewithmuchofthejurisprudenceput forwardbytheUnion.However,itwasurgedthatwhatisreasonableis anexplorationthatrequiresathroughreviewofthefactsathand.k purposiveapproachisessential.Anarbitratorshouldlookatthe positionofthepersontobeaccommodatedandconsideriftheycando theessentialdutiesofthatjobinaunionizedworkplace.Whilesome cobblingofdutiesisnowconsideredbysomearbitratorstobe appropriate,itisbeyondunduehardshiptohaveotheremployees displacedoraffectedbyareductioninhours.Whetheritbeaholistic 84 approachoronewherebothsubstantiveandproceduralobligationsare considered,commonsenseshouldprevailparticularlywhenother employees'rightsareaffected. TheEmployeremphaticallycontendedthatthiscaseisnotabout workplaceaccommodation.Ratheritisandalwayshasbeenaboutan allegationofapoisonedworkenvironment.Thegrievanceonitsface contemplatesthisissueandthegrievorshouldbeheldtothismuch narrowerissue.Areviewoftheevidenceinthisregardrevealsthatthe Hospitalundertookafairandthoroughinvestigationandthegrievor's allegationswerenotsubstantiated.Further,thegrievor'sownevidence inthisregardfallsfarshortofthetypethatwouldbringaboutafinding ofharassment,muchlessdamages.WhilethegrievornotedthatMr. Palmerputhis"sweatypaw"onherarmatonetimeandhisbehaviour wasbizarre,someoftheallegedlyoffendingbehaviourtookplacefour yearspriortoherwrittencomplaint.ThegrievoralsoattributedMr. Palmer's"mismanagement"withsomedifficultysheencounteredwith co-workers.Whilethoseinstancesmightspeaktomanagerialor personalstyle,theydonotconstitutesexualharassment.Mr,Palmer wasforthrightinhisevidenceandconcededsomeofthealleged commentssuchashisadmiringthegrievor'struck.Again,thegrievor foundthis"bizarre"forsomereasonandaddedittothelistofexamples ofsexualharassment.Theallegationsdonotstanduptoscrutiny. TheEmployernotedthatthereisanevolvingtestwithrespecttosexual harassment,Somearbitratorshavefoundthattheconductmustbe 85 consideredfromtheconceptofareasonablewomanorareasonable victim,However,evenwhenthatstandardisapplied,theevidencedoes notleadtoafindingforthegrievor.Indeed,thetotalityoftheevidence whichincludedMr.Palmeradvisingthegrievornottoresign-would indicateanongoingfunctionalrelationship.Itisimportanttonotethat noneofthemedicalevidencesupportsanallegationofsexual harassmentintheworkplace.Ifthismatterwereofmajorconcernto thegrievorsurelyshewouldhaveraisedwithvarioushealthcare providers.Whileworkplacestressisidentifiedandalitanyofother complaintsaresetout,thereisnothingaboutsexualharassment. Mr.Whitecontendedthatwhendeterminingthematterofsexual harassment,evenwhenapplyingthereasonablevictimstandard,clear andcogentevidenceisnecessaryanditsimplyisnotpresentinthis case.Accordingly,nofindingagainsttheHospitalcanbemade. TheEmployerarguedinthealternative,iftheBoardisoftheviewthat someliabilityhasbeenestablished,aconsiderationofdamagesshould bealtogetherdifferentthanthatsuggestedbytheUnion.Lossofincome wasrequestedbythegrievorandyetitisunclearastowhatthatmeans. Thegrievorstatedinherevidencethatshecontemplatedparttime workandgraduatingtofulltimebutitisunclearastowhenandhow thatwouldhaveunfolded.Reviewingtheevidence,Dr.Kerwinstated thatthegrievormighthavebeenabletoreturntoworkinJanuaryof 2003.ThegrievorappliedforLongTermDisabilityasofMarch2003. Aftertheinitialdenialthegrievortooklegalactionandinherstatement 86 ofclaimdatedOctober13,2004,shesworethatshewastotallydisabled whichwouldmeanthataccommodationintotheworkplacewasnot possible.ShestatedinherStatementofDisabilitythattherewereno aspectsofherjobthatshecouldperform.Indeed,theseproceedings weresuspendedwhilethatactionunfoldedfi'omJune10,2005until November23,2006.Iftheagreementtosuspendwasrootedinthecivil actionthenthereisnoEmployerliabilityforthisperiod.Indeed,a reviewofthetranscriptoftheexaminationfordiscoveryofthegrievor revealedthatshesworeshecouldnotbeaccommodatedinherownjob orintheaccommodatedjobthatisthesubjectofhergrievance.The grievor,intheseproceedingsattemptedtoexplainthosecommentsby testifyingthathercounseladvisedtousethosewords.Thegrievor appearstoberesilingfromthosecommentsbuttheyareactually consistentwiththeevidencebeforethisBoard.Furthebitmustnotbe forgottenthatthegrievorstatedinherevidenceonJune25,2008that shedidnotwanttobereinstated.Therefore,thereisnoevidenceupon whichthisBoardcanfindamonetaryawardforlossofwagesbecause thegrievorwas,inherownwords,disabledfromdoingthework. IntheeventtheBoardisoftheviewthatdamagesareappropriate,the EmployersubmittedthatthedamagesawardedbyClaricaforthistime mitigatesanyamountcontemplated.Thedamagespaidtosettlethe LongTermDisabilityclaimwereforaperiodthatincludedthetimefor whichthisgrievanceisfiled.Additionallyitshouldnotbeforgottenthat thegrievorbegananurserybusinessandshestatedinherevidencethat shehadcommittedherselftothatworkforafive-yearperiod.Little 87 revenuehasbeengeneratedinthatbusinessbuttheEmployercannot beaskedtopayforthatdecision.Arbitratorshavefoundinthepastthat whileitisacceptabletobeginabusinessitisnotreasonabletofailto undertakeafullandextensivejobsearchanddamagesshouldbe discountedaccordingly. Forallofthesereasons,intheEmployer'sview,damagesare fundamentallynilevenifthereisafindingoffailuretoaccommodate, Regardingthematterofgeneraldamagesitwassaidthatintheevent thatthisBoardfindstheEmployerhadanobligationitfailedtomeet, anyorderwouldbesignificantlylessthanthequantumidentifiedbythe Union, InclosingtheEmployeraskedtheBoardtodeclarethattheemployment relationshipwiththisgrievorhasendedparticularlyinlightofher evidenceinJuneof2008thatshewasnotgoingtoreturntothe workplacewithorwithoutanaccommodation,Further,theBoard shouldfindthatthegrievancewasrestrictedtotheissueofsexual harassmentandstatethattherewasnoevidencetosubstantiatethe allegationsinthatregard,IftheBoardtakesjurisdictionofthe accommodationissueandfindsafailuretoaccommodate,thematter shouldbetreatedasafrustrationofcontract, TheEmployeralsorelieduponReCanadaPostCorporationand CUPW(January14,1997),unreported(Ponak);ReKentv.Stop'N' Cash1000Inc.[2006]51C,C.E.L,(3d)199;ReBetterBeefLtd.and 88 UFCW,Region18(1994),42L.A.C.(4th)244(Welling);ReCityof Brampton&A.T.U.,Local1573(1998),75L.A.C.(4th)163(Barrett); ReAboucharv.MetropolitanTorontoSchoolBoard[1999]35 C,H.R.R.D/175;andReAllanv.WestinghouseCanadaInc.[2000]O.J. No.5054. UNIONREPLY Turningfirsttothematterofformat,theUnionsaidthatwhileit originallyagreedtodealwiththisgrievancebywayofSection50 alongwithanumberofothergrievances-itputtheEmployeronnotice thattheformathadfailedtoresolvethismatteranditexpectedto proceedintheusualfashion,Thatnoticeeliminatesany misapprehensionthatthisBoardhasauthorityunderSection50ofthe Act.IntheeventthatthisBoarddisagreeswiththatview,theUnion particularlyisconcernedthatdiscussionsheldduringthemediation sessionswouldbetakenintoaccountinanysignificantway.Virtuallyall oftheevidencethatisrelevanttothiscasewasprofferedduringthe arbitrationhearing.Thattestimonywasheardbyallandwassubjectto cross-examinationandforthosereasonsistheappropriateevidenceto consider, AdditionallytheUnionhadconcernsregardingtheEmployer's submissionsregardingSection50werewithrespecttomatterof conductanddeportment.ItwassuggestedthatthisBoardcannot considerandtakeintoaccounthowvariousindividuals,andin 89 particulartheUnionrepresentative,conductedbusinessincludinghis treatmentofothers.IfthisBoardweretoadoptthisapproachitwould interpolateitselfintotheevidentiaryprocessandbecomeahidden witnesstherebyallowingtheBoard'sopinionsonfactualmattersto influencetheparties'legalrights. TheUnionalsotooksignificantissuewiththeEmployer'ssuggestion thattherewasalinkbetweenthemed/arbprocessanditsowndutyto accommodate,TheEmployerarguedthatthediscussionsearlyinthe processfocusedondamagesandnotonreintegrationintothe workplace.ThosediscussionswerewithoutprejudiceandtheUnion suggestedthatthiscaseisaclassicexampleofwhythatisso.Parties mediateintheshadowoflitigationandengageincandiddiscussionsbut allthewhileknowingthattheycanresorttotheirlegalrights.Toagree totheEmployer'sviewofthiswoulddofarreachinglabourrelations damage, Regardingthematterofthescopeofthegrievance,theUnionreminded theBoardthattheissuesindisputeweresetoutfullyintheUnion's openingstatementandiftheEmployerwasoftheviewthattherewas anexpansionofthegroundsitcouldhaveandshouldhaveraiseditasa preliminaryobjectionatthatpoint.Inanyevent,itmakesnopractical differencebecausetheBoardwouldstillhavetodeterminewhetherthe grievorwasimproperlydeniedanaccommodationinBurk'sFallsor otherwisedoingworkonthemanuals. 9O TheUniondidnotagreewiththeEmployer'sassertionthatthelaw standsforthepropositionthatdamagescannotbefoundpayablefora proceduralbreachunlessevidencehasestablishedasubstantivebreach. Itwassuggestedthatthisareaoflawisevolvingbutarbitratorshave awardeddamagesforaproceduralbreachevenwhenthesubstantive dutytoaccommodatewasdischarged.TheUnionrelieduponReTim DayandCanadianHumanRightsCommission[2007]CHRT43 (Jensen);andReCassidyv.EmergencyHealthandServices CommissionandOthers(No.2),2008BCHRT125.Inanyevent, substantiveaccommodationwouldhavebeenpossiblewithoutundue hardshipanditwastheEmployer'sonustoproveotherwise.Itwas suggestedthatMr.Palmer'sevidencerevealedthattheUnion's proposalsforworkinBurk'sFallsoronthemanualswerenot operationallyfeasible.However,norealrationalewasgivenand certainlynothingthatwouldrisetothelevelofestablishingundue hardship. Regardingthematterofresponsibilityforobtainingmedical information,theUnionrespondedthatitwasnotsurprisingthatthe fiascooftheSARSdeskpositioncausedacommunicationbreakdown.It istoberememberedthatanemployerisnotentitledtoallmedical information.Eachcasewilldictatetheamountofinformationrequired andinthisinstanceitisnotclearthattheEmployerwasentitledtoallof theinformationthatwasultimatelyprovidedbythegrievorasitwas irrelevanttoanyaccommodationneeds.Further,therecanbeno questionthatitistheEmployerwhoistotaketheleadinthisregard 91 andthatincludessomepreliminaryblueprintofthemedical informationitneeds.TheEmployerfailedtodothatinthiscaseand cannotnowblamethegrievorforafailuretodiscloseinformationthat wentfarbeyondwhatitwasentitledtoknow, RegardingtheBurk'sFallsposting,itwastheUnion'sresponsethatMs. BarrysentanemailinSeptemberof2004inanefforttohavethis positionassignedtothegrievor.Itwasacknowledgedthattheparties agreedtodiscussthatmatteratasubsequentmediation/arbitration day,itwasneverresolvedandtheUnionsubmittedthatthesuggestion wasapossibleaccommodationthattheEmployerfailedtoimplement. WithrespecttothematteroftherateofpayfortheSARSpositionitwas theUnion'sviewthattheevidencedidnotsubstantiatethatMs.Badger waswillingtodiscussthewagerateattheJuly25,2003meeting.Inthe eventthatcommentwasmade,itisatenuousfoundationtoprovethat theEmployerhasnotcloseditsmindonthewages.IftheEmployerwas preparedtocontinuetonegotiateitmadenofurthereffortsanditdid notrespondwhentheUnionrepresentativeattemptedtodoso. TheUnionurgedtheBoardtotakenoaccountoftheEmployer'sfocus oncommentsmadebythegrievorinherexaminationfordiscovery.It wouldbewrongtotakeafewselectsnippetsofevidenceoutofcontext andsuggestthattheyarethecompleteanswertoapreponderanceof evidenceinthegrievor'sfavour.Themedicalevidencebeforethis Boardisthatshecouldhavesustainedareturntoworkwith 92 accommodation.Indeed,itshouldberecalledthatinDr.Kirwin'scross examinationhesaidthatthestatementsthatthegrievorwasunableto returntoworkwaspredicatedonhisunderstandingthatnomodified dutieswereavailable. TheUnioncontendedthatthereshouldbenodeductionfromdamages owingbecauseofthegrievor'scommentthatshewasnotgoingto returntowork.AbsentaformalnoticefromtheUniontotheEmployer thatreinstatementwouldnotbesought,therecontinuedtoexistan employmentrelationshipandthegrievorcouldhaveandshouldhave beenofferedasuitableaccommodation.TheUnionrelieduponRe p AttorneyGeneralofCanadaandMichaelPepper[2010]FC226.This decisionsaysthatwhendealingwithhumanrightsviolationsthe adjudicatorneedstoconsiderthebigpictureandinthepresentcase, thegrievor'salienationfromtheworkplaceisthecumulativesumofthe Employer'sbreachofherrights.Hadtimelyaccommodationbeen providedthegrievormightwellhaveaverydifferentviewofthe viabilityoftheemploymentrelationship.Whenthereisabreakdownin anemploymentrelationshipthecauseshouldbefoundandblame ascribed. TheUnionstronglyurgedthattheEmployer'ssuggestionofreduced liabilityfortheEmployerbecauseoftheUnion'sbehaviouris inconsistentwiththecaselaw.Ithasbeenconsistentlyheldthataunion isliablewhenithasunreasonablyimpededaccommodationefforts.No suchactivityexistedinthiscase. 93 TheUnionrespondedthattheEmployer'scontentionthattherewasno medicaldocumentationregardingsexualharassmentisanirrelevant considerationforthisBoard.Intheeventthatnoneofthephysicians treatingthegrievorchosetoincludereferencestothismattercertainly doesnotmeanthattheactivitydidnotoccur. RegardingtheEmployer'ssuggestionthatthefundsobtainedinthe grievor'scivilactionshouldoffsetbackpayowinginthismatterthe Unionnotesthatthereareimportantdifferencesbetweensettlement proceedsandmoniesowingforfailuretoaccommodate.Themoney relatestoadifferentperiodoftimeandistheresultofabreachof contract,thatis,thefailuretopaylongtermdisabilitybenefits,The Boardisbeingaskedtoawardmoniestomakethegrievorwholeand awarddamages.IntheordinarycoursewhenLTDbenefitsarepaidit meansthataclaimanthasbeendeemedtotallydisabledfromwork. Whenacompensatm'yorderinrespecttoafailuretoaccommodateit meansthattheemployeehasbeenfoundtobecapableofperforming availableworkinanaccommodatedposition,Thegrievorwasnotpaid LTDbenefits.Shegotmoniesfromasettlement.Thatsettlement involvedthewithdrawalofgrievancesregardingfailuretopayLTDbut notthegrievanceaboutaccommodation.Thisisnotacoincidence.We canassumethatthesettlementmoniesrelatetoaperiodofillness lastingfi'omthesummerof2003untilearlyfallof2004,Thisgrievance relatestoaperiodofaccommodationbeginningintheearlyfallof2004. 94 Regardingmitigation,thelawisclear.IftheEmployerpleadsfailureto mitigateitbearstheonusofproof.Nodisputethatthegrievordidnot lookforotherwork.However,theEmployerlednoevidenceoflabwork intheareaforwhichthegrievorwasreasonablyqualified.The EmployerisaskingthisBoardtospeculatethathadthegrievor launchedaconventionaljobsearchshewouldhavefoundsomethingin thehealthsectoreventually.Suchanunsubstantiatedassertiondoesnot dischargetheEmployer'sonus.InthisregardtheUnionrelieduponRe DengarryProfessionalServicesInc.andBritishColumbia GovernmentandServiceEmployees'Union(2000),94L.A.C.(4th138 (Keras);ReIPSCOSaskatchewanInc.andUnitedSteelWorkersof American,Local5890(1999),83L,A.C.(4th)396(Stevenson);andRe BoardofEducationoftheCityofTorontoandUnitedAssociationof JourneymenandApprenticesofthePlumbingandPipeFitting IndustryoftheUnitedStatesandCanada,Local46(July2,1997), unreported(M.Levinson). Thepartieswereagreedthattherewasasuspensionofliabilitydueto thecivilactionfromJune10,2005untilNovember23,2006whenthe UnionformallyputtheEmployeronnoticethatthismattershouldbe broughtbackforarbitration.TheUnionaskedtheBoardtorejectthe Employer'ssuggestionthatfurthertimeshouldbediscountedwith respecttoliability.ItwasalsourgedthattheEmployer'srequestfora findingoffrustrationofcontractisinappropriateinthese circumstances. 95 DECISION Asmentionedabove,thepartieswereindisagreementaboutvirtually everyaspectofthiscaseexceptthestateofthelawasitappliesto accommodation.Itmakessensetofirstconsiderthematterofwhether thisdecisionshouldbeaproductofSection50oftheLabourRelations Act. Thisgrievanceandothersfiledbythegrievorwerepartofalarge bundleofgrievancesputbeforemeformediationandresolution.A numberofthosematterswereresolvedandsome,likeanother grievancefromthisgrievorwerewithdrawn.Noneofthoseother grievancesrequiredaformalhearingforresolution.Atthepointthat thepartiesreachedanimpasseregardingMs.Vardy'sgrievances,there werethreeremaining.TworegardingfailuretopayLTDBenefitsand theonesetoutatthebeginningofthisdecision. TheUnionhighlightedinitsreplysubmissions,andrightlyso,that neitherpartyhasactedinbadfaithduringtheprocessingofthis grievance.Thislitigationhasfollowed,assuggestedbytheEmployer,a verywindingpath.Whileitwashopedthatthepartiescouldresolve thisgrievancethroughmediation,thatwasnotpossible.Itwasalso thought,atonepoint,thatacivilactiontakenoutsidethegrievanceand arbitrationproceduremightforeclosetheneedforthisproceedingto continue,Howeverthatalsodidnotoccur.Neitherpartyisatfaultin thisregard. 96 Section50givesanarbitratortheauthoritytocreateaprocesss/he thinksappropriateinthecircumstanceandthatprocessthatmight includealimitingoftheextentandtypeofevidencetobeconsidered.In thiscase,oncethepartiesfailedtoresolvetheissuesafterthecivil actionhasbeenconcluded,itbecameapparenttomethattheparties weresowildlydisparateintheirviewsofboththefactsandissues,that nothingshortofa"normal"arbitrationhearingwouldservenatural justice, InReZettelManufacturing(supra)ArbitratorReillyreviewedhis jurisdictionunderSection50oftheAct.Thefactsofthecasebeforehim wereconsiderablydifferent,However,hedidopineatpage6: Itisprobablyappropriateinmostinstancesduringmediationto disregardflippantandorinappropriatecommentsasnothing morethanblusteroranunintendedbargainingstrategy.Onthe otherhand,thereareattimeswhencommentsareindicativeofa deeperinstitutionalmisconceptionoflegislativeobligations,asin thiscase. Becausesection50isauniqueprovision;itpermitsa mediator/arbitratortoconsiderunchallengedrepresentationsor commentsrelatedtoacasemadeduringthe mediation/arbitrationprocesswherevertheyareofsignificance tothesubjectmatterofthegrievance,tofindotherwise,would rendersubsection50.8asmeaningless;asthepowertolimitthe natureandextentofevidenceatarbitrationcouldbeseriously impaired.Section50callsforafluid,fairandattime,depending uponmanyconsiderations,anuninterruptedprocess. TheEmployerreliedonthiscaseinanefforttopersuadethisBoardto considerconduct,discussionandissuesthataroseduringthecourseof 97 themediation.IdonotdisagreewiththecommentsofArbitratorReilly assetoutabove.However,themediation/arbitrationoverwhichhehad jurisdictionandthematterbeforemearesubstantiallydifferent.For example,hestatedhisprocesswasfluidandthetimetakentocomplete thematterappearedtobequiteshort.Inthematterathand,theprocess waslong,complicated,multi-faeetedandoccasionallystagnant.Inany event,Ifoundthiscasetohavelittle,ifany,applicationtothecase beforethisBoard. Ithinkitisfairtosaythatthepartiesinthiscasewerebothquite hopeful,attheoutset,thatallissuescouldberesolvedduringthe mediation/arbitrationprocess.Whiletheremayhavebeensomeinitial concernaboutlimitingtheevidencebothpartiesappearedpreparedto foregosometraditionalrightsinanefforttoavoidamulti-dayhearing. However,iteventuallybecamepainfullyapparentthatatruncated processwouldbeextremelydifficulttocraftandperhapsimpossibleto achieve.CertainlytheUnionhadconcernsthatinvirtuallyanytypeof hybridexpeditedprocessthegrievormightbedeniednaturaljustice. Asmustbeapparentbytheevidencesetoutabove,therewasmuch disputeaboutvariousconversationsbothinsideandoutsideof meetings.Thatevidenceisintegraltoanydeterminationinthismatter. Forexample,thegrievorandMr.Palmerdisagreedaboutthecontentof certainconversationsbetweenthemoverthecourseofmanyyears.In myview,theresultwouldeitherbeunfairor,attheveryleast,havethe appearanceofunfairnessifallconcerneddidnothavefullopportunity 98 tohearalloftheevidenceandthenallowedtochallengeandrebutthe totalityofthatevidence.Accordingly,irrespectiveofwhatmy jurisdictionmayormaynotbeinthisregard,Iwillonlyconsiderthe evidenceprofferedduringthecourseoftheformalarbitration. IturnfirsttothematterofwhethertheEmployercreated,fosteredor allowedapoisonedworkenvironmentforthegrievor.Notsurprisingly, theEmployerdidnottakeissuewiththeconceptthatsexual harassmentconstitutesdiscriminationonthebasisofgender.Neither diditarguethesuggestionthatsexualharassmentcanmanifestitself bothphysicallyandpsychologicallyandcanbecausedbybehaviour rangingfromverbalinnuendoandinappropriategesturesuptoand includingphysicalassaultincludingrape.Rather,itcontendedthateven ifthisBoardchosethe"reasonablewoman"or"reasonablevictim" standard,therewasnosexualharassmentordiscriminationagainstthe grievorfromMr.Palmer. Inreviewingthequestionofwhethersexualharassmentissex discriminationtheSupremeCourtstatedinRe]anzen(supra),atpage 374: Emergingfromthesevariouslegislativeproscriptionsisthe notionthatsexualharassmentmaytakeavarietyofforms.Sexual harassmentisnotlimitedtodemandsforsexualfavoursmade underthreatsofadversejobconsequencesshouldtheemployee refusetocomplywiththedemands.Victimsofharassmentneed notdemonstratethattheywerenothired,weredenieda promotionorweredismissedformtheiremploymentasaresult oftheirrefusaltoparticipateinsexualactivity.Thisformof harassment,inwhichthevictimsuffersconcreteeconomicloss 99 forfailingtosubmittosexualdemands,issimplyone manifestationofsexualharassment,albeitaparticularlyblatant anduglyone.Sexualharassmentalsoencompassessituationsin whichsexualdemandsarefoisteduponunwillingemployeesorin whichemployeesmustenduresexualgroping,propositions,and inappropriatecomments,butwherenotangibleeconomic rewardsareattachedtoinvolvementinthebehaviour. Withoutseekingtoprovideanexhaustivedefinitionoftheterm,I amoftheviewthatsexualharassmentintheworkplacemaybe broadlydefinedasunwelcomeconductofasexualnaturethat detrimentallyaffectstheworkenvironmentorleadstoadverse job-relatedconsequencesforthevictimsoftheharassment.Itis, asArbitratorShimeobservedinBellv.Ladas,supra,andhasbeen widelyacceptedbyotheradjudicatorsandacademic commentators,anabuseofpower.Whensexualharassment occursintheworkplace,itisanabuseofbotheconomicand sexualpower.Sexualharassmentisademeaningpractice,one thatconstitutesaprofoundaffronttothedignityoftheemployees forcedtoendureit.Byrequiringanemployeetocontendwith unwelcomesexualactionsorexplicitsexualdemands,sexual harassmentintheworkplaceattacksthedignityandself-respect ofthevictimbothasanemployeeandasahumanbeing. InReLeachv.CanadianBloodServices(supra),CoutuJ.considered theissueofwhetherthefailuretoobjecttocertainconductatthetime isarelevantconsideration.Theconductatissueinthatcaseincluded allegationsofstandinguncomfortablyclose,touchingthebuttocksofa complainant,commentsthatacomplainantlooked"sexy"andthe offeringahotelroomkey.Inhisdeliberationshesaid,atPage19: Mr.Leach'scounselcross-examinedbothMs.WaineandMs. MonarqueconcerningtheirfailuretotellMr.Leachthathis conductwasobjectionable.AsforMr.Leach'smoresubtleconduct withMs.Waine(suchasinfi'ingingonherprivatespaceby standingveryclosetoher)Idoacceptthatthiscanbequite 10o subjective:whatonepersonconsidersaninvasionofhisorher privatespaceanotherpersonmaynot.Insuchcasethevictimmay havetolettheharasserknowtheconductismakingthem uncomfortable,IfthatweretheonlyconductthatMs.Waine complainedaboutIcouldacceptMr.Leach'spositionthathewas unawarethathisconductmadeMs,Waineuncomfortable. However,Mr.Leachwasorshouldhavebeenawarethatplacing hishandonMs.Waine'sbottomandkissingMs.Monarqueonthe lips,wasunwelcomeandwouldmakethemuncomfortable. .........Themerefactthatthesexualconductwasunwelcomeis sufficienttoconstituteharassment,Thereasonwhyanemployee didnotraiseobjectionsaftertheconductoccurredisnotrelevant, otherthanperhapsinrelationtocredibility,whichIhave addressedabove. Accordingtotheevidence,theveryfirsttimethegrievorraisedany issueregardingsexualharassmentwasatameetingsheattendedwith Mr.StewartandMs.BarryinMayof2003.ShortlyafterthismeetingMr. StewartinformedtheEmployerofthepresenceofapoisonedwork environment.InherlengthylettersubmittedtotheEmployerthe grievorsetoutarelativelysmallnumberofspecificallegations.Inmy view,manyoftheseallegationsaremoreproperlycharacterizedas criticismsofMr.Palmer'smanagementstyleorofhispersonality. Commentssuchas"peoplearejealousofyourtruck"cannotbesaidto besexualinnature,Complaintsthatsomeemployeeswerefavoured,or thatMr,Palmerfailedtorespondtovacationrequestsinatimely fashionhavenothingtodowithsexualharassment,Neitherdoeshis allegedpropensitytopostworkschedulesthatarenot"riddledwith mistakes".Allegationsofraisingunionrelatedissuesatstaffmeetings whennounionofficialswereinattendance,iftruemightbeilladvised, tosaytheleast,butthatconductdoesnotconstitutesexualharassment. 101 Acarefulreviewofthegrievor'scomplaintletter,andherevidence revealsfiveallegationsregardingsexualharassment.Thoseallegations arethatMr.Palmertoldher"ifhewassinglehewould"giveherpartner arunforhismoney";Mr.Palmertoldher"Christianmenhaveneeds justlikeothermen";duringtheweekofJune21toJune251999Mr. Palmer"surreptitiouslyplacedhissweatypaw"onherarmduring conversation;Mr.Palmeroften"invadedthelimitsofrespectablebody spaceallowances";andheoncetriedto"capturemeinatightspacefor thepurposesofconversation". Ms.Vardyconcededinhercross-examinationthatthefirsttwo allegationswerecommentsmadebyMr,Palmeralmosttwodecades beforeshelefttheworkplaceduringatimewhentheywerecoworkers. Byherownadmissionshedidnotcomplaintohimatfiletimethatthe commentswereunwelcome.Giventhetimingoftheallegedcomments andthelackofanytimelycomplaint,evenifMr.Palmerdidmakethese commentstothegrievoritisnotparticularlysurprisinghehadno recall.Iamoftheviewthattheallegedtimingofthesecommentsin relationtothefilingofthecomplaintcausemetodoubttheveracityof thestatements. ItisinterestingtonotethatthegrievormetwithMr.Palmerpriortohis beinghiredashermanagertoencouragehisapplicationforthe position.Byallaccountsshe(andMs.Barry)encouragedhisreturnto theworkplace.Whileshetestifiedthatthiswasbecauseitwasbestto 102 "gowiththebeastyouknow",accordingtoMr.Pahner,shemadehim feelwelcome.IacceptMr.Palmer'sevidenceintheregardandfindit unlikelythatifthegrievorwasoftheviewthatMr.Palmerhadbeen "stronglyoffending"her"fortwentyyears"andhadharassedher sexuallywhenaco-workerasstatedinherletterofcomplaint,she wouldhaveattendedsuchameetingtoencourageMr.Palmer'sre employmentasmanager. ThefinalthreecomplaintsareaboutMr.Palmer'sallegedfailureto respectthegrievor'spersonalspace,histouchingherarmandhis "corneringher"inhisoffice.Accordingtothegrievorshenever complainedtoMr.Palmerabouthistouchingherarmorstandingtoo close.Shetestifiedthatsheexpressedconcernaboutbeingcorneredin hisoffice.Howeverwhenaskedifherespondedtoherconcernshesaid onlythathe"musthavemoved"becauseshe"didnothavetohithim." Ms.Vardystatedthatshethoughtthetouchingand"invasionofher personalspacewassexualinnature".Laterinherevidenceshesaidshe thoughtthisbehaviour"hadasexualcomponent".Mr.Palmer vebementlydeniedthatassertion. AsnotedinReLeach(supra),conductsuchasstandingtoocloseisa subjectivematter.Inmyview,itwouldbedifficulttoappreciatethat one'sowndefinitionandpracticeregardingpersonalspacewas unacceptabletoanotherunlesstoldthiswasthecase.Additionally, somepeoplearemoreexpressiveintheircomnmnicationanddotouch others.Whiletherearenodoubtmanyinstanceswhentouchingofa 103 coworkerissexual,IdonotthinkthiswasthecasewithMr.Palmer.The grievoracknowledgedthatMr.Palmertouchedthearmsofotherpeople andshethoughthestoodtooclosetoothers.Giventototalityofthe evidenceinthiscase,IamoftheviewthatMr.Pahner'sstandingclose tothegrievorandtouchingherarmwasnotsexualharassment. Ms.BarrytestifiedthatshehadwitnessedMr.Palmer"puttinghishands onpeople"includingthegrievor.Sheneverheardanyinappropriate commentsfromMr.Palmer.ItisrecalledthatMs.Barrytestifiedthat shedidspeaktoMr.Palmerabouthisstandingtoocloseina relationshipmediationsessionbetweenthetwoofthemandheno longercausesherconcerninthisregard.Theonlyevidencebeforethis Boardisthatwhentoldofaproblemregardingdeportment,Mr.Palmer changedhisbehaviour.Ifthegrievorhadverbalizedherconcernsthe sameadjustmentmightwellhavebeenmade.Ms.Barry'sevidence,in total,didnotsupportafindingofsexualharassment. InReSteevesv.Woody'sPlace(supra),itwasnotedatpara17: Thecomplainantneedonlyestablishthattheconductorcomment "isknownoroughtreasonablytobeknown"tobeunwelcome (seesection7.1oftheAct.Thereisnorequirementthatthe complainantexplicitlyrejecttheconductorcommentofthe perpetrator(seeMcBainv.CanadaHumanRightsCommission) (No.2.(1984),5C.H.R.R.D/2285andPennerv.Gabriele(19870,8 C.H.R.R.D/4126). TheBoardisrequiredtoassesstheallegationsofsexual harassmenttakingintoconsiderationvariousfactorswhich includethenatureoftheallegations,theintensityoftheconduct orcomment,andtherecurrenceoftheunwelcomeactsor gestures, 104 Anapplicationofthosefactorsinthiscaseleadstoaninevitablefinding thatMr.Palmer'sconductwasnotsexualinnature. Mr.Palmerstatedthathewasunawarethathisconduct-intermsof wherehestoodwhenspeakingwithothersandoccasionaltouchingof anarm-wasunwelcomeoroffensive.Iacceptthat.Iwanttobeclear thatIdonotfindthatthelackofatimelycomplaintfromthegrievor,in andofitself,rendersherallegationswithoutmerit.Itisoneofthemany factorsinmydeliberations. TherecanbenodoubtthatthegrievordoesnotlikeMr.Palmerasa personorasamanager.InherlettertotheEmployersettingouther allegationsofapoisonedworkenvironment,sheberatedhisabilityasa managerandtookissuewithhimasaco-worker.Shealsomentioneda long-standingconflictwithacoworker.ThisBoardheardevidencefrom boththegrievorandMr.Palmeraboutansituationthatinvolvedthe grievorina"pushing"incident.Itwasclearthatthegrievorwas unhappywithwhatevermanagerialinterventiondidordidnottake place.Indeed,Ithinkitisfairtosaythatshewasveryangryastheresult ofMr.Pahner'streatmentofthissituation.Sheseemedtobeoftheview thatMr.Palmerwasfavouringsomestaffoverothers.Herstressand frustrationaboutherworkinthelaboratoryisapparentfromvarious physicianconsultations.Shealsospokeinhercivilactiondeposition thattherewereanumberofcoworkerswithwhomshehadproblems.1 cannothelpbutwondertowhatextentthegrievor'sfrustrationfrom 10S theperceivedlackofco-workerormanagerialsupportinthelaboratory impactedheroveralldiscontentwithMr.Palmerasamanager.Areview ofthetoneandcontentofthegrievor'sallegationletterunderscoresher dislikeanddisrespectforMr.Palmerasaperson,amanagerand/orasa co-worker.Therewas,withoutquestion,asignificantinterpersonal relationshipbreakdownatsomepointafterMr.Palmerbecamethe grievor'smanager.Whilethatwasunfortunate,Iamoftheviewthatit wasnotcausedbecauseMr.Palmerwassexuallyharassingthegrievor. InReLeach(supra),itwasnotedatparagraph109that"Themerefact thattbesexualconductwasunwelcomeissufficienttoconstitute harassment."Iagree.However,theconducthastobesexualinnaturein thefirstinstance.Justbecauseanemployeeistouchedonthearmbya managerdoesnot,inandofitself,meanthatthetouchingwassexual conduct.Anallegationthatatouchonthearmhasasexualcomponent doesnotmaketheconductsexualharassment.Thetotalityofevidence mustbeconsideredtomakesuchafinding.Whilebehavioursuchas touchingofanarmmightbevieweddifferentlyifconsideringacourse ofconduct,itdoesnotstandaloneassexualharassmentinthiscase. Thepartiesarguedtheappropriatestandardtoapplyinthe considerationofMr.Palmer'sbehaviour.Iacceptthattheappropriate standardisthe"reasonablewoman".However,Iamledtothe conclusionthatMr.Pahner'sconductwasnotsexualinnatureapplying anystandard. 106 TheevidenceregardingMr.Palmerbarringherexitfromhisofficewas somewhatodd.Shetestifiedthatshecouldnotexitandyetshe concededthathemovedwhenaskedbecause"didnothavetohithim". Shealsoconcededthatshewasnotsurethiswassexualmisconductor simplydomineeringbehaviour.Simplyput,Iamnotconvinceditwas either. Itisimportanttorecallthatinthiscase,whentheEmployerreceived thegrievor'sallegationsaninvestigationwasundertaken.Theevidence establishedthatitwasathorough,fairandtransparentinvestigationin whichtheUnionwasinvitedtoanddidparticipate,Indeed,therewasno assertionfromtheUnionatthetimethattheinvestigationprocesswas faultyorthattheEmployergaveshortshrifttothegrievor'sconcerns. Further,therewasnoevidencethattheUnionchallengedtheresultof theinvestigationatthetime.Theinvestigationfindingswerenot,in largemeasure,congruentwiththegrievor'sallegations,TheEmployer's lettertothegrievorsetoutthattheinvestigationidentifiedsomeareas whereimprovementwouldbemade,Therewasspecificreferencetothe ensuringconsistentpracticesregardingcommunicationandeducation, Theareasofimprovementhadtodowithmanagerialabilities,not sexualharassment. Thisisnotacasewhereanemployeeallegedsexualharassmentandthe Employerturnedablindeye.Inmyview,inthiscasetheEmployer actedquicklyandappropriatelytoinvestigatetheallegations.Iamalso 107 oftheviewthatitcametotherightconclusionwhenitfoundno substancetotheallegationofsexualharassment. Beforeleavingthisissue,Imustsaythatwhilenotdeterminative,Idid finditworthyofnotethattherewasnothinginanyofthemedical documentsreferringtoallegationsofsexualharassment,Iagreewith theUnionthattheallegationscannotbedismissedforthisreason, However,thefactthatthereisnomentionisappropriatefor considerationinmyview.Thegrievordidtellhermedicalpractitioners thatshewasunhappyatworkandwentintosomedetailaccordingto theirconsultationnotes.Shespokeofstressduetoco-worker relationshipsandthedeterioratingatmosphereinthelabduetolackof funding,Sherevealedanumberofprivatethoughtsandissues. However,shedidnotmentionbeingsexuallyharassedbyhermanager. Turningtothescopeofthemattersbeforeme.TheEmployerwould havemegonofurtherthandeterminingthematterofsexual harassment.Itsuggestedthatthegrievanceonitsfacerefersonlytoan accommodationrequest"arisingfromthepoisonedworkenvironment intheLaboratory,"TheEmployerarguedthatthescopeoftheissues properlybeforethisBoardisnarrowedbythisconstruction,Idisagree, Intheeventtherewaseverdoubt,andIdon'tthinktherewas,the requestedremedyonthefaceofthegrievancerequestsanorderthat "theEmployerprovidemewithaworkplaceaccommodationconsistent withmyneedsunderthetermsoftheOntarioHumanRightsCode." WhilethatmightnotbecrystalclearintheEmployer'sview,the 108 grievancewassignedandsubmittedwithindaysofalettersentbyMr. StewarttoMs.Badgergivingnoticethatgrievanceswouldbefiled becauseoftheallegedpoisonedworkenvironmentandtheEmployer's failuretoaccommodatethegrievor.Thisletterwaswrittenonthesame daythattherehadbeenunsuccessfuldiscussionswereheldbetween thepartiesregardinganaccommodationplanforMs.VardyattheSARS desk.Further,Inotethatthereweremeetingsheldbetweentileparties inJuneandJulyof2003todiscussanaccommodatedreturntowork. Thegrievordidnotwriteherletterofcomplaintregardingapoisoned workenvironmentuntilAugustof2003.Iappreciatethatthefocusof discussionchangedbetweenthepartiesandthatthepoisonedwork environmentovertooktheconversationforsometime.However,there wasneverawithdrawalofthegrievor'srequestforanaccommodation forareturntoworkafterhersickleave.Forthosereasons,Iamledto theconclusionthattheissueofaworkplaceaccommodationforthe grievorhasalwaysbeenpartofthedisputebetweenthepartiesandis anissueproperlybeforeme. Therehavebeenafewissuesthathavecausedthismattertobe somewhatobfuscated.First,thegrievorfiledthegrievancethatalleged afailuretoaccommodateatthesametimethatshewaspursing allegationsofafailuretoproperlygrantLongTermDisabilityBenefits. Indeed,oneofthegrievancesallegingimproperdenialofLTDwasfiled afewmonthsbeforetheinstantgrievancewassubmittedandasecond wasfiledamonthafterthegrievanceathand.Second,thematterofthe poisonedworkplacewasraisedandbecamethefocusofthedisputefor 109 aperiodoftime.Third,litigationregardingthefailuretopayLongTerm DisabilityBenefitstookplaceinanotherforum,Finally,themedical reasonsfortheaccommodationwereneverfullyrevealedtothe Employeruntilthecommencementoftheformalarbitrationhearing andhadchangedastimeelapsed.Theseissueshavemadea determinationinthiscaseacomplicatedmatter. Ithinkitappropriatetoturnfirsttowhataffect,ifany,thedispute regardingLongTermDisabilityhasonthisgrievance.InOctoberof 2004,thegrievorfiledastatementofclaimagainsttheEmployer's insurancecompany.Inthatstatementitwassaidthat"theplaintiff claimsthatsheremainstotallydisabledandhasprovidedmedical documentationoftotaldisability."Shealsoclaimedthat"theDefendant hasactedmaliciously,refusingtopaythePlaintifffornovalidmedical reason."Thisarbitrationproceedingwassuspendedwhilethatlitigation unfolded. Inthegrievor'sJanuary11th,2005depositionwhenaskedabouther conditionasofthesummerof2003shesaid: Iwassick.IcouldnotmoveIhadsomuchpaininmybody.What istheretobehappyaboutwhenyoucannotmove,youhaveno job,youhavenoincome,youthinkyou'redyingpossibly,this doesnotmakeahappycamper.Youcancallitwhateveryoulike. ThereasonIpersistedwasbecauseofthemajorpaininmybody. IdidnotfeelitwasbecauseIwasdepressed........ Duringherdepositionwhenitwassuggestedtothegrievorthatshehad beensomewhatinconsistentinherevidenceregardingherabilityto 110 returntoworkinthesummerof2003shesaid,"Iwasplaguedwith illness,butIwaswillingtotry(toreturntowork)inalessstressful environment,Ithought."Shewasthenasked"areyouphysicallycapable ofreturningtoyourjobasalabtech?"andheranswerwas,"no".When shewasaskedthemorespecificquestionastowhethersbewas "physicallycapableofreturningtothejobthatyouhavefiledaunion grievancefor"sheagainanswered"no".Thenextquestionwasifshe couldreturntoaccommodateddutiesandagainheranswerwas"no". Shortlyafterbeingdeposedinthoseproceedingsthegrievorfiledan applicationtoreceiveDisabilityBenefitsundertheHospitalofOntario PensionPlan.Inher"statementofdisability"shesaidthather symptomsbeganinMarchof2003.Shenotedthattherewereno aspectsofherjobshecouldperformastheresultofherdisability.She added,"duetothedemandingnatureofmypreviousjobandthe physicallimitationsofmyconditionwithrespecttotheenduranceand fatigue,Iamunabletoperforminaworkenvironment".Shealsosaid,"I cannolongerperformmypreviousjob". Whenaskedaboutthesestatementinhercross-examinationMs.Vardy impliedthatthatshewasansweringquestionsasinstructedbyher counsel.ItwassuggestedbytheUnionthatthesecommentsshouldnot betakenasfactsinthecasebeforeme.Itwasalsourgedthatthe Employershouldnotallowedto"takesnippets"ofthedepositionand therebydenytheappropriatecontextfortheevidence.Fortunately,the entiretranscriptwasputintoevidenceandthisBoardhashadthe 111 luxuryofreadingitinfull.IdisagreewiththeUnion'sviewthatwhen takeninfullthedepositionevidencerevealsthatthegrievor'scondition improvedandshewasreadytoreturntowork.Iamoftheviewthatthe depositionevidencerevealedthatthegrievorsaidshewastotally disabledfromthesummerof2003untilthetimeofherevidencein Januaryof2007.Whileshesaidthatshewas"stillplaguedwithillness" she"waswillingtotry(toreturntowork)inalessstressful environment"shethought. DuringherdepositionMs.Vardywasaskedaboutthisgrievanceandher requestforaccommodatedwork.Duringthatpartoftheevidenceshe hadtestifiedthattherewas"qualitycontrol"workinthelabtobedone. Whilesheacknowledgedthattherewasnoactualpositioninexistence shenotedthattherewasworkunderthatheadingtobedoneonan ongoingbasis.Whenshewasaskedifshewasabletoperformtheduties ofa"qualitycontrol"personworkingonmanuals,shesaidshewasnot abletodothatwork.Whenaskedwhyshesaidthatshe"hadnotbeenin aworksituationsincethisillnessbegan.Idon'treallyknowwhatI'm capabletodo.Ihaven'ttestedmyself."Shewentontodescribereasons whyshecouldnothavedonethe"qualitycontrol"positionthatwasat issueinherongoinggrievanceforreasonsincludingnumbnessinher handsandoverallphysicalfatigue. WhileIappreciatethatthecivilactionwasadisputethatisseparateand distinctfromthematterbeforethisBoard,1amoftheviewthatthese statementsarerelevant,indeedintegraltomyconsiderations.The 112 Employercontendedthatthegrievorgaveevidenceduringher depositionandmadecommentsonherstatementofdisabilityformthat werespecificallydesignedforafindinginherfavour.Itwasalso assertedthatthefactthatMs.Vardy'sevidencebeforethisBoardis somewhatatoddswithearlierevidenceandstatementsshouldleadtoa denialofthegrievance. Iamdeeplytroubledbytheconsiderabledisparitybetweenthe evidenceinthegrievor'sdepositionandherevidencebeforethisBoard. Generallyspeaking,Ms.VardytestifiedbeforethisBoardthatshewas abletoandshouldhavebeenaccommodatedatanyandalltimesince thesummerof2003.Yet,asseenabove,shetestifiedunderoathin anotherforumthatshewastotallydisabledin2003andcontinuedtobe disabledtotallydisabledinto2007,Itcertainlyputshercredibilityat issue. OnApril26,2007,thegrievorsignedanagreementwiththeEmployer's insurancecompanythatstatedinpart: Itisfurtherunderstoodandagreedthatasaresultofthe paymentsmentionedabove,Irenouncemyrightsthatmay directlyorindirectlyariseunderthesaidPolicyandthatmy coverageunderthesaidPolicyisnowterminatedforallintents andpurposesforanydisabilitydirectlyorindirectlyrelatedto fibromyalgia,irritablebowelsyndrome,chronicfatiguesyndrome oranxiety/depression. ItisfurtherunderstoodandagreedthatIrenouncemyrightto claimanannulmentofthisFullandFinalReleaseforanyreason whatsoeverincludinganyerrorinlaworinfactandhereby acknowledge and recognize that the above-mentioned payments coveranyandallheadingsofdamagesknownorunknownatthe 113 datehereofagainsttheReleaseesincludinganypossibilityof complicationorfutureaggravation. TheEmployerarguedthatthegrievorshouldbeforeclosedfrom assertingarighttoaccommodationforthesameperiodforwhichshe has,ineffect,beenpaidLongTermDisability.TheUnionwasoftheview thatthegrievorwasnotpaidLongTermDisability.Shemerelyreceived asettlementinacivilactionforherwithdrawalofgrievancesregarding thefailuretopayLongTermDisability.Itwasimpliedthatbecauseshe receivedasettlementthatwaslessthanonehundredcentsonthedollar themoniesshouldnotbecharacterizedasLongTermDisability payments.IcannotaccepttheUnion'sviewofthis.Thegrievorcannot asserttotaldisabilityfromanyoccupationinoneforumandthen professawillingnessandabilitytoworkinanaccommodatedposition beforethisBoardforthesameperiodoftime.Inotherwords,the grievorshouldnotreceivecompensationastheresultoffiling grievancesallegingfailuretopayLongTermDisabilitypaymentsand thencomebeforethisBoardandasktobecompensatedforfailureto accommodatefortbesameperiod.Tomakesuchafindingandallow sucharemedialrequestwouldbewrongbecausenotonlywouldthe grievorbereceivingmoniesforthesameperiodbringingabouta windfall,themonieswouldbefortwoentirelydifferentandcompeting reasons. Havingarrivedatthisconclusiondoesnotendthematter.TheUnion urgedthatiftheEmployerhadproperlyaccommodatedthegrievorin thesummerof2003,whatfollowedmightwellhavebeenvastly 114 different.Thegrievor'sfirstgrievanceregardingafailuretopayLTD wasfiledinthespringof2003.Notwithstandingthisgrievance,all parties,includingthegrievorbegantoexploreanaccommodation,For thatreason,IaccepttheEmployer'sconductregardingthegrievor's requestforanaccommodationinthesummerof2003isproperlya matterbeforemeforconsideration.Therefore,thequestionremainsas towhethertheEmployerhasfailedinitsobligationtoaccommodatethe grievorinthesummerof2003whenaskedtodoso, Itisnowtritelawthataccommodationisasharedresponsibility, Employers,unionsandemployeeseachhavearesponsibilitytowork togethertowardaccommodation,Anoverviewoftheseresponsibilities wassetoutbyArbitratorDorseyinReCloverdalePaintIne(supra.)at page6: Itisasharedresponsibilityoftheemployer,employeeseekingthe accommodationandthetradeuniontoensurethesuccessofan accommodation.Theemployercontrolstheworkplaceandhas theprimaryresponsibility,Itmustinitiateasearchto accommodateonceitreceivesasubstantiatedrequestfor accommodation.Theemployer'sdutyincludesanon-going obligationtore-assessoptionsascircumstanceschangeforthe employeeorintheworkplace,Theemployer'sdutyisnotopen ended.Itisabalancebetweentherighttoequalityoftreatment foradisabledemployeeandtherightoftheemployertohavea productiveworkplace. Theemployeemustparticipate,acceptandfacilitate implementationofanemployer'sreasonableaccommodation offer,eveniftheemployeewantsorprefersanotherarrangement. Theunionmustcooperateandnotunreasonablyblockaworkable accommodationoption.Sometimesacollectiveagreement provisionhastobewaivedifitunreasonablyblocksaworkable solution. 115 Aworkableaccommodationisnotasimplesearchforeitherwhat theemployeeprefersorthesimplestoptionfortheemployer regardlessoftherightsofotheremployees.Therecanbeseveral accommodationoptionsthatanemployercanfashionand proposeforeachsituation. Accommodationforadisabledindividualisanindividualprocess thatmustconsiderandrespondtoboththeindividualandthe context.Itisanongoingsharedprocessduringwhichan attemptedarrangementmustbemonitored,adjustedand,if necessary,replace.Itisnotasingleeventorsingleeffort. Areasonablerequestforaccommodationmusthaveareasonable responsethatbalancestherightsandresponsibilitiesofall personsintheworkplace.Theaccommodationarrangementdoes nothavetobeeithertheperfectsolutionforthedisabled employeeorthefirstpreferenceofthedisabledemployee.The searchforaworkableaccommodationmustaccountforand balancetherightsofotheremployees. InReSyndicatdesEmployesdel'Hoptial(supra),theCourtsaid: Theimportanceoftheindividualizednatureofthe accommodationprocesscannotbeminimized.Thescopeofthe dutytoaccommodatevariesaccordingtothecharacteristicsof eachenterprise,thespecificneedsofeachemployeeandthe specificcircumstancesinwhichthedecisionistobemade. Throughouttheemploymentrelationship,theemployermust makeanefforttoaccommodatetheemployee.However,thisdoes notmeanthataccommodationisnecessarilyaone-waystreet.In O'Malley(atp.555)andCentralOkanaganSchoolDistrictNo23v. Renaud[1992]2S.C.R.970,95D.L.R.(4th)577,theCourt recognizedthat,whenanemployermakesaproposalthatis reasonableitisincumbentontheemployeetofacilitateits implementation.Iftheaccommodationprocessfailsbecausethe employeedoesnotco-operate,heorhercomplaintmaybe dismissed.AsSopinkaJ.wroteinCentralOkanagan,"[t]he complainantcannotexpectaperfectsolution"(p.995).The obligationoftheemployer,theunionandtheemployeeistocome toareasonablecompromise.Reasonableaccommodationisthus incompatiblewiththemechanicalapplicationofageneral 116 standard.Inthissense,theUnioniscorrectinsayingthatthe accommodationmeasurecannotbedecidedonbyblindly applyingaclauseinthecollectiveagreement...... Inmyview,inthefactsofthiscase,theEmployer,theUnionandthe grievorallfailedtocarryouttheirresponsibilitiestofindan accommodationforthegrievor.Muchofthefailurewasperhapsasthe resultofthecompletecommunicationbreakdownthatoccurred betweentheEmployerandtheUnionaswellasbetweentheEmployer andthegrievor.Theevidencerevealedthattherewasdisdain, disrespectanddisregardbetweenMs,BadgerandMr.Stewart.Ms, Badgertestifiedthatshefeltbelittledand"bullied"byMr,Stewart.I acceptthatevidence.Itisimmediatelyapparentfromherevidenceand fromthetoneofvariousletterswrittenbyMr.Stewart'sthatwereput beforethisBoardthathewasnotaneasymantoworkwith.Whenthe grievorandMs.Barrywereaskedabouthisroughapproachtoward hospitalpersonnelIfoundtheiranswersevasiveandsomewhatcoy,Ms. BarrysuggestedthatMr,Stewartwas"passionate",Idonotdoubtthat hewas.Butitalsoappearsfromboththevivavoceanddocumentary evidencethathewasrude,boorishand,attimes,counterproductive,to saytheleast.ButthatconductdoesnotabsolvetheEmployerofits obligations, Similarly,theUnionurgedthatMs.Badger'sapproachtothegrievor waslessthanappropriateorprofessionalduringthisperiod.Itwas assertedthatshetoldthegrievorthatshedoubtedtherewasaneedfor allyaccommodationand,inanyeventshewasnotentitledtoan 117 accommodationbecausethiswasnotaworkplaceinjury.Ialsoaccept thatevidence.Icamlothelpbutfindthatthesecommentscontributed greatlytothecompletecollapseofongoingdiscussionsregardingan accommodation. TheHospital'sfailuredidnotendthere.Itwouldappearthatafterthe filingofthegrievancebeforethisBoard,norealattemptsweremadeto discussorfindaccommodationforthegrievor.Whenthegrievor mentionedthatshehadanauto-immuneproblemthereshouldhave beenfurtherdiscussionandaconsiderationastowhethertheSARS deskassignmentwasanaccommodationthatthegrievorcouldmanage. Ratherthanexpressdoubtastothebonatidesoftheneedforany accommodationtheEmployercouldhaveandshouldhaveaskedfor moremedicalinformationdealingwithtilegrievor'sauto-immune condition.Instead,commentsweremadethatshutdownfurther discussion.Dm'ingthecourseoftheearlydiscussionsregarding accommodationmentionwasmadeofthegrievorworkingatBurk's Fallsorworkingonmanuals.Irrespectiveofwhetherthosesuggestions wouldhaveworkedout,Ihavelittleevidencethattherewere consideredinanysignificantwaypriortothegrievor'smentionofall auto-immuneproblemandnoneafter.Forallthesereasons,Iamofthe viewthattheEmployerfailedinitsdutytoaccommodatethegrievorin thesummerofandearlyfallof2003. Thegrievoralsofailedinherresponsibility.InJulyof2003,a physician'snotedatedJuly4,2003wasprovidedtotheEmployer.Dr. 118 Harroldwrotethatshethoughta"graduatedreturntowork"wouldbe "apositivestep".Shedidsetoutascheduleforagraduatedreturnto workwiththehoursincreasingoverathreeweekperiod.Itwasnoted thatduetothegrievor's"currentphysicalstatus"sheshouldnotengage inheavyliftingorphysicallabour.Itwasalsosaidthatshemight requireshortbreakseveryhourandbeallowedtouseadonutpillow. TheEmployerwasalsoinformedthroughthisnotethatsheshouldnot workshiftworkbecauseitwas"notpossibleatthistime",Itis interestingtonotethatinthesameletter,thephysiciannotedthatMs. Vardy"doesnotwishtoreturntofull-timedutiesatthistime."Thereis nothinginthisnote,orinanyoftheearlierdiscussionsabout accommodationthatwouldflagfortheEmployerthattherewasany typeofproblemwiththeSARSdeskassignment.Ifthesuggestionofthis workwasoutsideofthegrievortoleranceduetoauto-immuneissues orforanyothermedicalreason-itcouldhaveandshouldhavebeen raisedattheoutsetsothatfurthereffortswouldnotbewasted consideringthisposition.Tobeclear,itisnotbeingsuggestedthata diagnosisshouldhavebeenprovidedtotheEmployer.However,if intoleranceorsensitivitytopathogenswasproblematicforthegrievor, thatfactshouldhaveberaised. Additionally,Iamoftheviewthatthegrievorshouldnothaveabsented herselffromtheongoingnegotiationsaboutpossibleaccommodations. HerevidencewasthatshewassoupsetbyMs.Badger'scomments madeattheSeptember18th2003meetingthatshecouldnotbring herselftoparticipateinfurtherdiscussions.1understandthatbeing 119 accusedofhavingnobonafideneedforanaccommodationwas upsettingtothegrievor,butitdoesnotallowhertostepoutsidethe processandexpectfruitfulnegotiationstocontinueunabated. Finally,inthisregard,Imustfindthat-toalesserextent-theUnion failedinupholdingitsresponsibilitiestofindanaccommodationforthe grievor.TheUnionandthegrievorwereofferedanaccommodated positionattheSARSdesk.Ratherthansuggestthattherateofpayfor thispositionbegrievedandarbitrated,Mr.StewartmerelyberatedMs. Badgerforher"unprofessionalconduct"andfor"simplypayinglip servicetotheprocessandbywayofthesetacticsistryingtoweight downMs.Vardy'sresolveinherattemptstogetjusticeandfairplay."It isinterestingtonotethatthelocalUnionofficial,Ms.Barryseemedtobe themostfocusedonmovingforwardwithpossibleaccommodationfor thegrievorandmakinganefforttodosoinamannernotdesignedto offend. AsnotedinReCloverdalePaint(supra),andmuchoftheother jurisprudenceputbeforethisBoard,theEmployerbearstheprimary responsibilityforaccommodation.Forallofthereasonssetoutabove, inmyview,theEmployerdidnotmeeteitheritsproceduralorits substantiveobligationtoaccommodatethegrievorinthesummerand earlyfallof2003andforthatfailure,damagesareowing. Asmentionedabove,thegrievorstatedinherdepositiononJanuary11, 2005-thatisbeforeshearrivedatasettlementregardingherLTD 120 dispute-thatshehadnointentionofreturningtoworkatthehospital. Ofcourse,theEmployerdidnotknowatthetimethatMs.Vardyheld thatviewbecauseitwasnotapartytothoseproceedings.However,she repeatedthatcommentinherownevidenceincross-examinationon June25,2008,IagreewiththeEmployerthatheradmissionmadein thisproceedingbringsaboutanenddatetoherclaimforafailureto accommodate.Thegrievorwasclearthatshewouldnotreturnwhether accommodatedornot. OnNovember23,2006theUnioninformedtheEmployerthatthis matterwasnolongersuspendedandwouldcontinuenotwithstanding thelackofresolutioninthecivilactionregardingtheLTDbenefitdenial, Asmentionedabove,Iwillnotconsidertheperiodthatwasincludedin thataction,TheagreementresolvingthatclaimwasApril25,2007,Iam thereforeleftwiththeperiodfromApril26,2007untilJune25,2008 whenMs,VardystatedinherevidencebeforethisBoardthatshewould notreturntoworkforthisEmployerwithorwithoutan accommodation, Ithasbeenwellestablishedinthejurisprudencethatthefactthata grievorelectstoarbitratethematterofwhethers/hehasbeendenied accommodationdoesnotrelievetheEmployer'sobligationto accommodateanemployee.ThedifficultyfacingthisBoardisthatthere isnoevidenceofanyeffortsmaderegardinganaccommodationforthe grievorbyanyone.AttheverylatesttheEmployerknewaboutthe settlementregardingthegrievm"sLTDdenialcivilactionwhenshewas 121 givingherevidenceillchief.Itwouldhaveorshouldhaveknownthat anyclaimthatthegrievorwastotallydisabledfromworkinghadended. Itwouldhavebeenwellwithinitsrightstoseekareturntoworkas therehadbeennoseveringoftheemploymentrelationshipinaneffort toreducewhateverliabilityitmighthaveintheseproceedings.Andyet, nothingwasdonethatwasbroughttotheattentionofthisBoard. Similarly,theUnioncouldhaveandperhapsshouldhavebroughtabout arenewedrequestforaccommodationatthispoint,Accordingtothe evidencebeforethisBoard,itdidnot,Nordidthegrievor,However,the matterofaccommodationcontinuedtobeanissueindisputebetween theseparties,Inmyview,somecompensationisowingtothegrievor fortheEmployer'sfailuretoaccommodateduringthisperiod,Iremit thequantumofcompensationforthisperiodbacktotheparties,In thesediscussionsitshouldbetakenintoaccountthatallthreeparties theUnion,theEmployerandthegrievor-failedtomeettheirongoing responsibilitiesduringthistime,However,asnotedabove,theprimary responsibilityrestswiththeEmployer,Intheeventthatthepartiesare unabletoresolvethismatterwithinthirtydaysofthereleaseofthis decision,counselaretocontactmyofficetoscheduleaconferencecall todealwiththematter, ReturningtothematterofdamagesfortheHospital'sfailuretomeetits obligationtoaccommodatethegrievorduringthesummerandfallof 2003,takingintoaccountallofmycommentsinthatregard,lorderthe Employertopaythegrievoranamountof$S,000,damages, 122 Totheextentsetoutabove,thegrievancesucceeds.Iremainseized. DatedatTorontothis2nddayofOctober,2012, FelicityD.Briggs 123