Employee's refusal to comply with treatment plans warranted his dismissal from employment: court
In a recent employment dispute, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that a union fulfilled its duty of fair representation by supporting an employee for years despite his refusal to comply with treatment plans, ultimately leading to his termination.
The applicant, employed as a civilian parking enforcement officer by the Toronto Police Services Board, faced challenges after being convicted of impaired driving in 2019. He had been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder and initially received support from the union to access medical leave and benefits. Despite attempts to assist the applicant in addressing his condition, he did not comply with treatment plans requiring in-patient rehabilitation and abstinence from alcohol.
In 2021, the employer’s wellness program suspended the applicant’s benefits due to non-compliance with treatment recommendations. The union filed a grievance regarding the suspension and later negotiated a last-chance agreement with the employer when his termination became likely. The agreement included several conditions, including in-patient treatment, abstinence, and random testing. The applicant rejected these terms, leading to his dismissal in 2022. The union declined to grieve the termination.
The arbitrator determined that the union had fulfilled its obligations by advocating for the applicant over several years and pursuing reasonable accommodations. The arbitrator found no evidence that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, which are the established criteria for breaching the duty of fair representation.
The applicant sought judicial review, arguing that the arbitrator was biased, failed to address his concerns about human rights violations in the last-chance agreement, and did not consider his entitlement to severance pay under employment standards legislation.
The Superior Court found the arbitrator’s decision reasonable, noting that the union made significant efforts to support the applicant, including negotiating accommodations and advocating for treatment. The applicant’s ongoing refusal to comply with treatment recommendations and his continued alcohol consumption justified the employer’s decision to terminate his employment.
The court dismissed allegations of bias as unfounded. It noted that the focus on alcohol use disorder reflected the medical evidence, which identified it as the primary factor preventing the applicant’s return to work. It also rejected claims of discrimination and human rights violations.
The court concluded that the union acted appropriately and reasonably in its representation and dismissed the application for judicial review.
