FPSLREB Decisions

The grievor worked as a designer/illustrator classified DD-04 – she referred seven grievances to adjudication, alleging that the employer’s efforts to accommodate her environmental sensitivity disorder were insufficient – she also made a complaint under the CLC, alleging that the respondent took disciplinary action against her after she refused unsafe work when she could not safely use a washroom due to scented products – in her first grievance, she alleged that the voluntary scent-free guideline was ineffective, since staff members did not comply with it – the Board found that while the accommodations measures were not perfect, they were reasonable, given the circumstances – the employer followed a doctor’s recommendations to relocate the grievor’s workstation and to implement a scent-free guideline – in her second grievance, she alleged that the employer failed to accommodate her by allowing visitors wearing scented products to enter the workplace – the Board found that the employer accommodated her disability by managing her risk of exposure from visitors and by instructing employees to remind visitors of the scent-free policy – in her third grievance, she alleged that the employer discriminated against her when it removed her from the workplace – after an adverse reaction to scented products in the bathroom, she began driving home to use the washroom – she was involved in a motor-vehicle accident while driving to an offsite washroom – one month later, the employer removed her from the workplace – the Board found that the employer’s decision to remove her from the workplace and then to place her on paid leave was a reasonable accommodation – it prevented her from being exposed to potentially harmful substances while the employer determined how best to accommodate her, moving forward – the grievor also made a complaint under the CLC, alleging that the employer took disciplinary action against her when it dismissed her from her DD-04 position – she alleged that she was removed from the workplace as a form of reprisal for her refusal to work because the washroom could not be a guaranteed safe environment – the Board found that she was not dismissed when she was removed from the workplace – the employer did not take an action prohibited by s. 147 of the CLC – later, it offered her an AS-01 position that she could perform from home – she accepted the offer but filed four more grievances, alleging discrimination – the Board dismissed the two grievances under s. 209(1)(b) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2; the Act) – it found that there was no argument or evidence that the offer was a disciplinary measure – the Board dismissed the two grievances under s. 209(1)(a) of the Act – it found that the AS-01 offer was a suitable accommodation measure – contrary to her DD-04 position, the new one allowed her to work remotely and so was a reasonable accommodation.

Grievances denied.
Complaint dismissed.