Employer and employee weren't sure how to handle pregnancy in male-dominated workplace
This instalment of You Make the Call features a steel mill employee who claimed her employer didn’t accommodate her pregnancy with modified duties.
Tanya Thompson worked for Ivaco Rolling Mills in Hawkesbury, Ont. She was a rare female employee in the mostly male workforce at the steel mill. As a result, when she became pregnant in early 2010 it was the first employee pregnancy Ivaco dealt with at the mill.
On March 23, 2010, Thompson informed Ivaco she couldn’t work at her regular position because of her pregnancy and stopped reporting for her regular shift. Ivaco responded by asking for a doctor’s note specifying what she couldn’t do and her pregnancy itself wasn’t a reason to be absent. In late April, Thompson provided a medical note stating she was unable to work for medical reasons. She also applied for short-term disability benefits, which were denied by the benefits provider.
After being off work for two months, Thompson filed a grievance in June 2010, complaining that she was discriminated against when Ivaco failed to provide her with modified duties. Ivaco indicated it was willing to accommodate her but it still didn’t have any information on her restrictions and limitation.
On Aug. 24, Thompson’s doctor provided a list of her medical restrictions and Ivaco proposed two possible positions for her. After more than a week, the company followed up as it hadn’t heard from the union. A few days later, the union responded, saying it didn’t accept the proposal because it would negatively affect other union members. The union proposed creating a new position for Thompson but Ivaco said that was not a requirement for accommodation and the new job would be in a different bargaining unit.
The union indicated that even though it opposed Ivaco’s suggested accommodation, it was still possible to implement it at the risk of a grievance being filed. On Oct. 6, Ivaco officially offered Thompson one of the accommodated positions, which she accepted.
Thompson filed another grievance over the length of time it took for Ivaco to put her in another job to accommodate her pregnancy. She was essentially out of work for several months, which was not reasonable accommodation, she argued.
You Make the Call
Did Ivaco make a reasonable effort at accommodating Thompson?
OR
Should the company have done more to find her modified work more quickly?
If you said Ivaco made reasonable efforts at accommodating Thompson, you’re right. The arbitrator noted that both the employer and the union were inexperienced with this kind of situation, since Thompson was the first pregnancy at the steel mill. However, the arbitrator found they both approached things in good faith and Ivaco lived up to its obligation to accommodate. It was Thompson who did not, said the arbitrator.
When Thompson apprised Ivaco of her situation, the company immediately asked for medical information on her restrictions so it could proceed with arranging accommodation. However, Thompson did not provide that information until five months later, said the arbitrator. And when she finally did, Ivaco promptly offered her a position to meet those restrictions, only to be delayed by the union’s tardy response, perhaps because of its uncertainty about the situation, said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator found the delay in accommodation arose out of the failure of Thompson to provide sufficient information which Ivaco needed for accommodation and the failure of the union to respond promptly and reasonably to Ivaco’s overtures.
“While (Thompson’s) inexperience may be unfortunate, it does not excuse her failure to provide the necessary medical information which the company asked for,” said the arbitrator. “Nor can the union fault the company for a further delay occasioned entirely by the refusal of the local union to agree with the proposed accommodation.
For more information see:
