Worker takes a stand for ergonomic chair

Employee had permanent medical restrictions but believed he could perform job if company provided chair for periodic rest

This instalment of You Make the Call looks at a worker who claimed his medical restrictions weren’t accommodated.

An employee at an Ontario plant of TRW Canada, a manufacturer of linkage and suspension automobile parts, suffered a back injury in 1994 and received workers’ compensation benefits for three years.

When he returned, the worker did a variety of jobs. At times he had back problems but was able to deal with them with help. In mid-2003, he was laid off briefly and returned in another job. However, he had a hard time with the new position because it was physically demanding. TRW tried to accommodate him but his back pain was too much.

A functional abilities evaluation determined the worker had permanent restrictions, including limitations on repetitive movements. He went on short-term disability leave in November 2003.

The worker returned to work in a new job, that of RS socket operator, by early 2004. The job was done in a standing position while assembling parts. This aggravated his back, but he found by using another worker’s ergonomic chair to take occasional, brief breaks, he could do the job.

Soon, however, the other employee moved to a different area of the plant and chained the chair to the workstation so it couldn’t be taken. Without the chair, the worker’s condition got worse. He submitted a note from his chiropractor requesting his own ergonomic chair, but he didn’t receive one.

After taking a two-week vacation in October 2004, the worker returned to the job he worked before his 2003 disability leave. However, he couldn’t handle the physical work and stopped on the third day. His chiropractor recommended he take a week off but he never returned to work. He also provided another note saying he could return to work if he had an ergonomic chair.

TRW had an occupational therapist review the jobs at the plant. The therapist determined none of the work available could be done by someone with the worker’s restrictions. All the jobs required repetitive actions and there “were no reasonable modifications evident to accommodate the worker,” including the socket operator job, which required repetitive movements and positioning contrary to the worker’s restrictions.

The union argued the worker had successfully performed the socket operator job for eight months by taking small breaks in an ergonomic chair and by not providing him with one it was refusing to allow him to return to work.
You Make the Call

Should the worker have been reinstated to the socket operator job with the accommodation of an ergonomic chair?
OR
Did the worker’s permanent restrictions preclude him from performing the job even with accommodation?


If you said the worker’s restrictions precluded him from performing the job, you’re right.

The board said TRW made an effort to accommodate when it conducted the analysis and evaluation of the worker’s job and restrictions. Though using an ergonomic chair would relieve some of his difficulties, the board found the actions and positions required to actually do the work exceeded his permanent restrictions. Since the chair was not “logically and medically connected” to performing the job, it was not a reasonable accommodation, nor would it help the worker stay within his restrictions.

“Even though a person may be able to perform a task or an activity on occasion which exceeds his restrictions, the purpose of permanent restrictions is that a person should not perform that task or activity over time,” the board said. “Whether the (worker) was able to perform the job successfully over a period of six or eight months is irrelevant.”

The board ruled TRW did not have to reinstate the worker to the socket operator job with an ergonomic chair. See TRW Canada Ltd. v. Thompson Products Employees’ Assn., 2007 CarswellOnt 8887 (Ont. Arb. Bd.).

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!