Employee with arthritis given room on first floor for lunch and changing, but wasn't happy with it
This instalment of You Make the Call features an employee with physical limitations who complained about the quality of his accommodation.
Krzystof Katarzynski worked for Nitta Gelatin Canada, a provider of food, pharmaceutical and technical gelatins in Toronto, since 1990. In March 2004, Katarzynski was injured at work. He received workers compensation but he developed arthritis in his hip due to the pain. As a result, Nitta assigned him to a position that didn’t require the use of stairs during the workday.
Katarzynski usually went home for lunch, but in 2009 he moved farther away from work and he started to have to eat at work. Nitta allowed him to use a room on the first floor of the plant for his lunch and break room, as the regular lunchroom and employee changeroom was on the second floor and could only be reached by stairs.
Soon, Katarzynski began complaining about his makeshift lunchroom. He said there were bad odours emanating from a nearby washroom and a drain in the room, the paint was peeling, there wasn’t enough heat, there was no refrigerator or lock on the door and the room wasn’t cleaned. He also said when he put cardboard over the glass on the door for privacy while changing, it was removed.
Nitta eventually addressed some of Katarzynski’s complaints, but it took a while and some issues weren’t solved. After further complaints in May 2010, the plant manager said the lunchroom would be improved “when there is time.” The manager also said if Katarzynski felt the improvements weren’t being done in a timely manner, he should see him in person.
However, rather than going to see the manager, Katarzynski called him and reiterated his complaints. He was upset and felt devalued, so he said he was going to leave the plant. He met with management and union representatives a few days later, but left unsatisfied. His doctor diagnosed Katarzynski as suffering from anxiety and insomnia due to what he felt was the company’s failure to accommodate him and he was off work for seven weeks. Nitta gave Katarzynski an advance on sick pay benefits but the insurer denied his claim and Katarzynski was required to repay them. Katarzynski filed a grievance claiming Nitta failed to accommodate him by giving him a break room that was inferior to what other employees enjoyed.
You Make the Call
Did the employer fail to make adequate accommodation efforts?
OR
Was the first-floor room sufficient to accommodate Katarzynski’s needs?
IF YOU SAID the room was sufficient and the employer met its obligation for accommodation, you’re right. The arbitrator found that though the first-floor room may have been inferior to the regular employee lunchroom, Katarzynski and Nitta had agreed on the room as part of Katarzynski’s accommodation. Nitta’s was required to accommodate Katarzynski by providing a room he could use, and as long as he could use it, the company wasn’t obligated to provide him with a room that was equal to the regular employee lunchroom, said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator noted that Nitta was addressing at least some of Katarzynski’s complaints about the room, and though it may have been taking too long on some of them, this wasn’t a violation of the duty to accommodate. The room remained functional.
“(Katarzynski) did not leave the workplace because his right to reasonable accommodation was not being met,” said the arbitrator. “Rather, he left because he was upset with the manner with which he was being treated.”
