FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

to the August 31, 2007 return to work plan for the applicant’s return to the afternoonshift. Mr. Zbaraschuk’s letter to the applicant that accompanied the respondent’sproposed August 31 return to work plan also states:I can assure you that I have met with the Supervisor in charge [Mr.Castellano] and reviewed this plan, as well as the employer’sresponsibility with respect to the RTW plan. He clearly understands hisresponsibilities and will co-operate to administer the RTW plan asdesigned.Mr. Zbaraschuk goes on in his letter to the applicant to say:2012 HRTO 1455 (CanLII)We must insist on your co-operation in the Return to Work Program. Ifyou are experiencing difficulties with assigned tasks discuss with yoursupervisor immediately. If you are asked to assist in or perform a taskwhich you have been medically restricted from politely decline and reportto your supervisor.These are reasonable measures, in my view, to support the applicant’s return to ahealthy work environment.[108] I do note here that I have made a finding that the respondent failed in its duty toaccommodate the applicant in April and May. However, this finding does not mean thatwhen the respondent arrived at a different finding, namely that the applicant had notbeen subject to any discrimination by the respondent that the respondent failed in itsduty to investigate. As stated in Laskowska the standard a respondent has to meet isreasonableness not correctness or perfection. I find that the respondent’s timely andconsidered efforts in investigating the applicant’s allegations of discrimination andharassment were reasonable and it has met its duty to investigate.5) Did the respondent meet its duty to accommodate up to the point of unduehardship when it required the applicant to return to his position on the afternoonshift?34