Did employer go far enough in accommodating worker's needs?
This instalment of “You Make the Call” takes a look at a case where a unionized worker with diabetes refused to switch shifts and was subsequently terminated as a result.
In the summer of 2004, Meridian Automotive Systems in Brantford, Ont., attempted to move the worker from the midnight shift to afternoons because of a decline in production. The worker, a member of the Canadian Auto Workers union, did not have enough seniority to remain on midnights. She took the position that her Type 1 diabetes prevented her from working the afternoon shift.
On Aug. 5, 2004, she submitted a note from her family doctor stating that because of her diabetes she had to work straight shifts with no alteration in her schedule. Meridian was puzzled by the note because the afternoon shift was a straight shift. Meridian told her the medical note did not support her claim.
On Aug. 8 she submitted a second doctor’s note. It repeated that she should be on a constant shift and also stated: “She has chosen to work the night shift and should stay on the night shift.”
Again, Meridian thought the note was insufficient. She was told to report for work at 3 p.m. that day. But she reported for the midnight shift. She was sent home and told to show up for the afternoon shift the next day. Instead, she called in sick and filed a claim for short-term disability. She remained off work until shortly after her claim was denied in late October 2004.
On Nov. 2, Meridian’s HR manager met with the worker and a union rep to discuss her return to work. She reported to work that afternoon.
But she called in sick the next day. After that, she returned but soon began reporting diabetic health problems to Meridian. On Nov. 11 she spent about one hour in the first-aid room. On Nov. 16, she left work four hours early. On Nov. 18, she had another diabetic reaction late in her shift. An ambulance was called but when the paramedics took her blood sugar, it was normal.
On Nov. 19, Meridian’s HR manager held another meeting with the worker and the union. The purpose of the meeting was to give her some literature from the Canadian Diabetes Association on diabetes and shiftwork, clarify an insulin schedule with enhanced breaks to accommodate her medical needs and to instruct the worker to bring her glucometer to work with her.
On the afternoon of Nov. 19, she did not report to work. On Nov. 25, she had another diabetic low sugar attack and got into an argument with her supervisor. On Nov. 26, the HR manager held another meeting. The HR manager reviewed the multiple absences recorded by the worker, the employer’s efforts to assist her and the persistence of her diabetic issues while at work. Meridian removed the worker from the workplace pending medical clearance that she was emotionally and physically fit to return to work.
On Dec. 3, the company got a letter from her lawyer threatening legal action if she wasn’t put back on midnights. On Jan. 7, she forwarded a note from her doctor stating she should return to midnights “for the same reasons specified before.” The company again rejected the letter and told her to report to work on Jan. 7. She did not show up and was subsequently fired.
Was Meridian justified in terminating her employment?
OR
Should it have done more to accommodate her diabetes?
If you said Meridian was justified in terminating the worker, you’re right. The arbitrator said, for whatever reason, the worker was determined not to work the afternoon shift. He said the employer was “extraordinarily patient” with the worker and said there was a strong inference that the worker might have let her diabetic attacks worsen to help make her case that she could not work afternoons.
The arbitrator pointed out the worker had lived with diabetes for 35 years and should have known how to handle transitions to new daily routines. It was simply too late now to reinstate her to the afternoon shifts, he ruled.
For more information see:
•Meridian Automotive Systems v. C.A.W. Canada, 2005 CarswellOnt 8263 (Ont. Arb. Bd.)
In the summer of 2004, Meridian Automotive Systems in Brantford, Ont., attempted to move the worker from the midnight shift to afternoons because of a decline in production. The worker, a member of the Canadian Auto Workers union, did not have enough seniority to remain on midnights. She took the position that her Type 1 diabetes prevented her from working the afternoon shift.
On Aug. 5, 2004, she submitted a note from her family doctor stating that because of her diabetes she had to work straight shifts with no alteration in her schedule. Meridian was puzzled by the note because the afternoon shift was a straight shift. Meridian told her the medical note did not support her claim.
On Aug. 8 she submitted a second doctor’s note. It repeated that she should be on a constant shift and also stated: “She has chosen to work the night shift and should stay on the night shift.”
Again, Meridian thought the note was insufficient. She was told to report for work at 3 p.m. that day. But she reported for the midnight shift. She was sent home and told to show up for the afternoon shift the next day. Instead, she called in sick and filed a claim for short-term disability. She remained off work until shortly after her claim was denied in late October 2004.
On Nov. 2, Meridian’s HR manager met with the worker and a union rep to discuss her return to work. She reported to work that afternoon.
But she called in sick the next day. After that, she returned but soon began reporting diabetic health problems to Meridian. On Nov. 11 she spent about one hour in the first-aid room. On Nov. 16, she left work four hours early. On Nov. 18, she had another diabetic reaction late in her shift. An ambulance was called but when the paramedics took her blood sugar, it was normal.
On Nov. 19, Meridian’s HR manager held another meeting with the worker and the union. The purpose of the meeting was to give her some literature from the Canadian Diabetes Association on diabetes and shiftwork, clarify an insulin schedule with enhanced breaks to accommodate her medical needs and to instruct the worker to bring her glucometer to work with her.
On the afternoon of Nov. 19, she did not report to work. On Nov. 25, she had another diabetic low sugar attack and got into an argument with her supervisor. On Nov. 26, the HR manager held another meeting. The HR manager reviewed the multiple absences recorded by the worker, the employer’s efforts to assist her and the persistence of her diabetic issues while at work. Meridian removed the worker from the workplace pending medical clearance that she was emotionally and physically fit to return to work.
On Dec. 3, the company got a letter from her lawyer threatening legal action if she wasn’t put back on midnights. On Jan. 7, she forwarded a note from her doctor stating she should return to midnights “for the same reasons specified before.” The company again rejected the letter and told her to report to work on Jan. 7. She did not show up and was subsequently fired.
Was Meridian justified in terminating her employment?
OR
Should it have done more to accommodate her diabetes?
If you said Meridian was justified in terminating the worker, you’re right. The arbitrator said, for whatever reason, the worker was determined not to work the afternoon shift. He said the employer was “extraordinarily patient” with the worker and said there was a strong inference that the worker might have let her diabetic attacks worsen to help make her case that she could not work afternoons.
The arbitrator pointed out the worker had lived with diabetes for 35 years and should have known how to handle transitions to new daily routines. It was simply too late now to reinstate her to the afternoon shifts, he ruled.
For more information see:
•Meridian Automotive Systems v. C.A.W. Canada, 2005 CarswellOnt 8263 (Ont. Arb. Bd.)
