FPSLREB Decisions

Decision Information

Kussner v. Treasury Board (Correctional Service of Canada)

Collection FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Rendered 2026-04-02
Citation 2026 FPSLREB 32
Before Guy Grégoire
Decision Type Labour Relations
Subject Terms Collective agreement
Discrimination
Duty to accommodate
Overtime
People with disabilities
Keywords Labour relations – Individual grievance – Collective agreement – Interpretation – Overtime assignments for evening and morning (night) shifts – Discrimination – Disability – Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6; CHRA) – Scope of accommodation plan – Readily available
Original Language English
Note Please note that this decision will be published when it is available in both official languages. If you wish to obtain a copy of the decision in the official language it was written, please communicate with mail.courrier@fpslreb-crtespf.gc.ca.
Summary:

There are three shifts at the employer’s Edmonton Institution, the day shift, the evening shift, and the morning (night) shift. The grievor was a correctional officer. In June 2018, he obtained a medical note that required the employer to accommodate him and to take him off night shifts. From then on, he was assigned overtime in the form of extra-duty work for the four hours before and after his regular day shifts. In February 2019, the employer concluded that working overtime on evening and night shifts was not compliant with the accommodation plan by mistakenly giving a wider scope to it. In March 2019, the grievor filed a grievance, alleging that he was being denied overtime on the evening shift as well as on extension shifts (19:30-22:30). The Board found that the grievor demonstrated that he had a disability protected under the CHRA. The grievor suffered from an adverse impact from the employer because it prohibited him from working overtime at the beginning of the evening and at the end of the night shifts due to his disability. It acknowledged his condition by putting in place an accommodation plan under which he was removed from the evening and night shifts following the doctor’s recommendations. The Board found that the accommodation plan was not stopped; the employer narrowed its interpretation of it. By offering the grievor work at the beginning of the evening and end of the night shifts, the employer actually did not comply with the accommodation plan and gave it a wider scope than it should have had. The doctor’s recommendations were the motivation to limit the grievor’s ability to continue working overtime as he had been doing. The employer did not contravene clause 37.01 of the collective agreement. On the issue of overtime under clause 21.10, the Board concluded the grievor could not have been deemed readily available to work the evening and night shifts because they conflicted with his medical limitations. Therefore, the Board concluded that the employer did not breach clause 21.10.

Grievance denied.

Decision Content

There is no document available for this decision.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.