NC-036 - Medical Discharge

Early on in her 25-year career, the Appellant experienced alleged workplace sexual harassment but did not file a complaint. In mid-2011, she joined a new post. She went off duty sick in early 2013 and was slated to return to work in mid-2013 but did not do so, as new incidents of alleged workplace harassment and discrimination aggravated her condition. She made complaints over how she was treated. Some of the complaints were deemed unfounded. The status of the rest of the complaints were not disclosed. Over the next two years, RCMP officials expressed to the Appellant an openness to offering her return to work opportunities either at or near her preferred locale. The Appellant could not return and was soon assigned the medical profile of Permanent O6, meaning she was unable to return to any duties within the reasonably foreseeable future. Subsequently, an Employee Management Relations Officer unfruitfully tried to meet with her to discuss options and obtain any information which could help the RCMP find an accommodation.

In April 2017, the Appellant supplied the RCMP with a certificate from her doctor stating that she would be unfit for duty until a point identified as “forever”. Following the conducting of a medical discharge process, the Respondent issued an Order to Discharge the Appellant, finding that the RCMP’s efforts to accommodate her had not been successful, that she was not able to fulfill the basic obligations of her employment relationship for the foreseeable future and accordingly, that the RCMP had met its duty to accommodate her disability (Decision). The Appellant initiated an appeal, arguing that the Respondent violated a principle of procedural fairness and erred in fact and law by disregarding the alleged abuse she experienced and by omitting to properly consider whether the RCMP met its duty to accommodate her disability up to the point of undue hardship.

The ERC found that the Respondent plainly considered the information supplied to him involving the alleged harassment and discrimination the Appellant suffered as a member. With genuine respect for the Appellant and her concerns, the ERC pointed out that: the cause of an employee’s disability has no bearing on the scope of the duty to accommodate; there was no evidence in the record directly linking her disability to harassment or discrimination; and it is not the role of the final adjudicator on appeal to re-weigh evidence in the absence of a manifest and determinative error. The ERC also found that the Respondent sufficiently assessed whether the RCMP met its duty to accommodate the Appellant’s disability, up to the point of undue hardship. His reasons and assessments demonstrated an understanding and application of the underlying principles of the relevant test. Namely, it could be reasonably inferred from the Decision that, in the Respondent’s opinion, the standard of attendance at work had been instituted for a purpose rationally linked to the Appellant’s job performance and in an honest belief that it was necessary to the fulfillment of that legitimate work-related purpose. Furthermore, it could be reasonably inferred from the Decision that, in the Respondent’s view, the standard of workplace attendance was necessary and that it was not possible to accommodate the Appellant’s disability short of undue hardship. This view was based on the fact there were no steps which could be taken to accommodate a member with a prognosis of being unable to return to work in any way “forever”.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be denied.