No link between dismissal and any disability; B.C. worker breached policy that contemplated termination
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a complaint by a worker alleging that his termination was discriminatory based on his mental health disabilities.
The worker worked for Horizon North Logistics, a facility management and workforce accommodations company for various industries based in Mississauga, Ont.
In October 2018, the worker was involved in an incident involving his mental health at work. He went on disability leave for two months and the senior manager of operations approved a suspension.
In 2019, the worker was promoted to the role of accommodations manager at a lodge for workers in a remote area of BC, where he was responsible for overseeing the operations of the lodge. Under Horizon policies, he was required to remain fit for work while he was on call, not attend work under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and he was supposed to notify another supervisor if he left the premises while he on call.
According to the worker, the lodge was understaffed and he had to work long hours. This started affecting his mental health, which he said was known to some Horizon staff.
Workplace impairment
On Feb. 15, another employee invited the worker to go to a local pub. The worker spoke to the executive chef and asked her to assume his on-call responsibilities, as she was trained in the same emergency procedures as he was. However, according to Horizon, the executive chef wasn’t trained to take over the worker’s management duties.
The worker went to the pub with the other employee, where they consumed alcohol and an illegal drug. The worker was intoxicated and, when he arrived for his shift the next morning, he was still impaired.
The senior operations manager learned that the worker had been drinking the previous night and confronted the worker, who apologized. He broke down and told the manager that he had anxiety and had been going through a difficult time. The manager sent him for drug and alcohol testing and then home.
The tests came back with breath alcohol levels above the impairment level warranting discipline for employees in safety-sensitive positions under Horizon’s substance abuse program policy, so Horizon suspended him. Additional tests came back positive for the illegal drug.
The worker contacted a Horizon human resources partner and said he had been struggling with mental health issues including anxiety and depression. He also told the guest service agent, the executive chef, his supervisor, and the director of operational support that he was in a “very dark place” and he wasn’t well.
Substance use assessment
On March 11, Horizon sent the worker for a substance assessment evaluation, which determined that he met the criteria for a “deferred diagnosis,” which happened when there were no signs of an alcohol use disorder. According to the worker, he wasn’t forthright with the assessor about his drinking because he didn’t trust the assessor or the company, although he believed he had an alcohol dependency.
On May 19, the worker returned to work and he was terminated for cause. The other employee who had invited him to the pub wasn’t disciplined.
The worker filed a human right application alleging that his termination was discrimination based on his mental disabilities. He claimed that Horizon’s decision to terminate his employment was connected to his struggles with mental health and substance use and that the company either knew or should have known about his condition after the October 2018 incident. He alleged that he was treated more harshly compared to how other employees had been treated for similar conduct – such as his co-worker who invited him to the pub and a kitchen employee who reported for work at least twice while visibly impaired or hungover, who received a five-day suspension. He also contended that Horizon had an obligation to inquire whether his conduct was related to a disability and to accommodate accordingly.
Horizon applied to have the worker’s application dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The company argued that the worker was treated differently because he was a manager in a safety-sensitive position with a higher standard of conduct and responsibility. It pointed to the worker’s employment agreement, which stated that the accommodations manager position was safety-sensitive and he was required to remain alcohol- and drug-free.
The tribunal agreed with Horizon that the worker was in a safety-sensitive position with a higher standard of conduct, so it was reasonable to treat him more harshly for his misconduct. There was no evidence that the employee who went to the pub with the worker or the kitchen employee who was suspended were in safety-sensitive or managerial positions, the tribunal said.
Policy contemplated termination
The tribunal determined that the worker’s termination was contemplated in Horizon’s policies, which prohibited him from being impaired while on call or at work.
In addition, any connection between the worker’s termination and his disabilities was conjecture, the arbitrator said, noting that there was no explanation for why Horizon would want to fire the worker because of his disabilities after recently promoting him. This wasn’t support for an inference of discrimination, said the tribunal.
The tribunal also found that there wasn’t anything connecting the worker’s conduct to a disability. The worker may have had problems with alcohol dependence, but he didn’t explain how it was connected to his decision to go to the pub while on call and report for work impaired, and he didn’t tell Horizon about any dependency concerns, the tribunal said.
The tribunal concluded that Horizon met its burden to prove that the worker was terminated solely for his misconduct - specifically for leaving the lodge while on call, consuming substances that impaired his fitness for work, and reporting for duty under the influence. The evidence didn’t support the claim that these actions were connected to any disability, nor was there sufficient evidence that the worker’s disabilities were a factor in his termination.
The worker suggested that Horizon had known about his mental health issues after the 2018 incident that resulted in a two-month leave of absence, but without any evidence connecting his misconduct to any disability, this wasn’t relevant, the tribunal said, noting that the assessment following his suspension didn’t indicate that the worker had a substance use disorder.
The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success for the worker’s complaint and dismissed it. Horizon acted in line with its workplace policies, which required higher standards for safety-sensitive positions such as the one held by the worker, said the tribunal. See Bains v. Horizon North Logistics Inc., 2024 BCHRT 247.
