FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

[23] The applicant continued to work until May 31 at which time he provided a furthermedical note from his doctor recommending that the applicant be off work until June 18.[24] The applicant met with Ms. Roehl on June 4 to discuss concerns the applicanthad about Mr. Castellano and his future return to work. It is agreed that the applicanttold Ms. Roehl that he was of the view that Mr. Castellano was requiring him to carry outtasks beyond his medical restrictions. The applicant contends that he also told Ms.Roehl about his meeting with Mr. Castellano on May 22 and that Mr. Castellano hadharassed him. The applicant testified that Ms. Roehl told him that she would raise thisconcern with Mr. Zbaraschuk.2012 HRTO 1455 (CanLII)[25] Ms. Roehl denies that Mr. Castellano raised any allegations of harassment anddiscrimination. She testified that Mr. Castellano’s concern focused on his workassignments including his contention that he had been assigned to pick orders forEnzo’s truck, a job the applicant considered to be particularly demanding and had beenrequired to wrap pallets, go into the freezer and to pick 500 items per shift. Ms. Roehltestified that she spoke to Mr. Castellano who maintained that he had assigned theapplicant modified duties after the applicant provided his doctor’s note and the Form 7on April 22 and that he explicitly indicated to the applicant that if a task was beyond hiscapacity because of his back that he should not do it.[26] Ms. Roehl testified that she reported the applicant’s complaints about the natureof his work assignments as well as the subsequent information she received from Mr.Castellano to Mr. Zbaraschuk. Mr. Zbaraschuk testified that Ms. Roehl did report to himthat the applicant had complained about Mr. Castellano and that he subsequently spoketo Sam Bianco, the day shift supervisor. He testified that Mr. Bianco told him thatemployees are expected to pick 500 items per shift and that while filling orders forEnzo’s truck is a major job (it requires 1800 picked items) three employees usually pickitems for it, suggesting, in effect, that it was not a more onerous job assignment. Mr.Zbaraschuk testified that he also spoke to Mr. Castellano who told him that he had aninformal practice of accommodating employees with minor injuries by allowing them to8
do what they can and that if someone came with a medical note he would look at whatthe person could do.[27] On June 7 the applicant’s doctor completed a new functional abilities form whichstated that the applicant was physically unable to return to work at the time. The doctorindicated that this assessment would apply for approximately 8-14 days and that thedoctor was recommending a further appointment with the applicant in mid-June toreview the applicant’s abilities and/or restrictions. The applicant provided this form to therespondent on June 12. On June 28 the applicant provided a note from his doctorstating that he was able to start work on July 3, 2007 with light duties for four hours aday with breaks.2012 HRTO 1455 (CanLII)[28] I also heard evidence as to whether the respondent had modified work for theapplicant for the month of June. The respondents initially indicated to the applicant thatthere was no modified work they could offer him past June 1. There is further evidencethat there were discussions during the month of June involving the applicant, therespondent and the WSIB claims manager about identifying modified work for theapplicant that I will refer to later. The applicant contends that the respondent failed in itsduty to accommodate him during June 2007.[29] The applicant returned to work on July 3. When the applicant returned to work hewas placed on the day shift in a modified position with reduced hours, pursuant to hisdoctor’s note of June 28. The applicant reported to the day shift supervisor, SamBianco. The applicant was in this modified position on the day shift from July 3 to Aug31. The applicant testified that he had no health related issues while working in thisposition. The applicant testified that while on the day shift he was mainly loading andunloading trucks using a pallet mover or forklift.[30] The applicant provided a further functional abilities form from his doctor to therespondent dated July 20. The applicant’s doctor recommended that the applicantcontinue with modified duties for four hours a day until September 4. On August 16, theapplicant underwent an assessment at the Humber River Hospital in response to a9
Page 1 and 2:
The Labour Relations BoardSaskatche
Page 3 and 4:
3unionized workforce at their plant
Page 5 and 6:
5[15] In addition, there was some h
Page 7 and 8:
7Employee “D”: He was on his pr
Page 9 and 10:
9[37] The Board did not have the be
Page 11 and 12:
11[48] Shortly after Mr. Copeland b
Page 13 and 14:
13credible reason for the disciplin
Page 15 and 16:
15outlined by the Board in RWDSU v.
Page 17 and 18:
173. Order for captive audience mee
Page 19 and 20:
19for his failure to produce the wi
Page 21 and 22:
21[95] Similarly as noted in the qu
Page 23 and 24:
23[103] Also, in The Newspaper Guil
Page 25 and 26:
25rights under the Act. The Employe
Page 27 and 28:
27The determination of whether, in
Page 29 and 30:
29respect to the section of the Alb
Page 31 and 32:
31meetings, would have been within
Page 33 and 34:
33[143] In respect of the complaint
Page 35 and 36:
- 2 -[2] The plaintiff, Susan Chart
Page 37 and 38:
- 4 -by the time she finished there
Page 39 and 40:
- 6 -[24] Testimony was received fr
Page 41 and 42:
- 8 -would feel grateful for the fo
Page 43 and 44:
- 10 -[49] 2. Comfortable, even tem
Page 45 and 46:
- 12 -[67] Another complaint was th
Page 47 and 48:
- 14 -bottom of the problem and the
Page 49 and 50:
- 16 -member about something amusin
Page 51 and 52:
- 18 -[111] Given that the meeting
Page 53 and 54:
- 20 -[130] Some of the plaintiff
Page 55 and 56:
- 22 -[146] The plaintiff’s expla
Page 57 and 58:
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIOBETWEENC
Page 59 and 60:
Page: 3[5] In his application, the
Page 61 and 62:
Page: 5(c) By the Employer at any t
Page 63 and 64:
Page: 7continuation, in the amount
Page 65 and 66:
Page: 9D. ANALYSIS[23] It is well-s
Page 67 and 68:
Page: 11[28] The appellant submits
Page 70 and 71:
Page: 14[37] When parties contract
Page 72 and 73:
Page: 16addressing the issue of a c
Page 74 and 75:
Page: 18application of mitigation:
Page 76 and 77:
Page: 202008 ONCA 479, 91 O.R. (3d)
Page 78 and 79:
Page: 22[56] Notably, the concern e
Page 80 and 81:
Page: 24termination without cause,
Page 82 and 83:
Page: 26[64] The costs on the appli
Page 84 and 85:
The parties agree this Board has th
Page 86 and 87:
Mr. Wallace. The evidence is that M
Page 88 and 89:
Mr. Mutter and Mr. Wallace each tes
Page 90 and 91:
Mutter spoke. He testified he was a
Page 92 and 93:
saw (or was told by the crew) Mr. K
Page 94 and 95:
and heard, as well as other factors
Page 96 and 97: When viewed in that light, it is fa
Page 98 and 99: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 100 and 101: Balogun v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP P
Page 113 and 114: Page 2of the immediate problem that
Page 115 and 116: Page 4- He admitted that he had pla
Page 117 and 118: Page 626 26. The Grievor's conduct
Page 119 and 120: Page 8he had a problem with was fro
Page 121 and 122: Page 10supervisor. Counsel argued t
Page 123 and 124: Page 12hope to gain a financial ben
Page 125 and 126: Page 1483 83. McKinley is an import
Page 127 and 128: Page 16(iv)Has the employer attempt
Page 129 and 130: HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO___
Page 131 and 132: [1] This is an Application under se
Page 133 and 134: [10] Sean McKay also testified on b
Page 135 and 136: THE LAW[19] Section 5 of the Code p
Page 137 and 138: that ensued. There is no evidence t
Page 139 and 140: HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO___
Page 141 and 142: [1] The applicant has filed two App
Page 143 and 144: CHRONOLOGY OF KEY EVENTS[11] The ap
Page 145: tasks beyond his functional limits
Page 149 and 150: checking summaries before stating t
Page 151 and 152: Roehl in June or to the respondent
Page 153 and 154: Section 10 of the Code defines hara
Page 155 and 156: was assigned duties that required h
Page 157 and 158: -last portion of the day he levels
Page 159 and 160: [66] I recognize that some of the c
Page 161 and 162: was made aware on May 22/07 that hi
Page 163 and 164: “To be honest Tony I don’t know
Page 165 and 166: is older, or believed that the appl
Page 167 and 168: [91] The applicant also submitted t
Page 169 and 170: steps to address allegations of dis
Page 171 and 172: this period lessening, in my view,
Page 173 and 174: [109] The respondent submits that i
Page 175 and 176: that the events of May 22 may have
Page 177: Accordingly, I am requiring the par
show all

FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?