Sioui v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada)

document icon
Full Text
2009 PSLRB 44
Before: Michele A. Pineau
Decision Rendered: April 9, 2009
Original Language: French
Termination for incapacity – Duty to accommodate – Search for alternate positions unsuccessful – Grievor denying incapacity

The grievor was terminated, for incapacity, from his position as a correctional officer under subsection 12(1) of the Financial Administration Act – the grievor had been absent from work for five years after witnessing a violent incident at work, which triggered post traumatic stress disorder – his claim for workers compensation was accepted – the medical evidence indicated that he was permanently unable to carry a firearm or to have contact with inmates – the evidence indicated that the grievor was susceptible not reacting properly in times of stress, placing himself and his co-workers at risk – the evidence also indicated that he was at risk for relapse should the stressors at work reoccur – the adjudicator found that employer’s efforts to find him another position within the public service had been unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, some attributable to the grievor’s inaction and unwillingness to relocate – the employer first terminated his employment in 2006, but following mediation, it reinstated him for a defined period in order to allow him to benefit from a further job search within the public service – the grievor then began to insist on reinstatement to his position as a correctional officer, something that the mediation settlement excluded – the employer therefore advised the grievor that he had not fulfilled the terms of the settlement and terminated him once again – at adjudication, the grievor contested his diagnosis and stated that he was well and that he was able to return to his previous position – the adjudicator found that the grievor suffered from permanent limitations that precluded contact with inmates and carrying a weapon – it was impossible for the grievor to work in a prison environment because the work could not be altered to accommodate his needs – the point of undue hardship had been met – the risk of reinstating the grievor to his position was too great to his health and to that of his colleagues, and he had not been able to prove the contrary – the employer had met its obligation towards the grievor by making multiple efforts to find him alternate work – that obligation is a two-way street, and the grievor did not meet his obligation to collaborate.

Grievance denied.