Employee worried about getting back from trip late and leaving pregnant wife with special needs son
This instalment of You Make the Call features a union employee who refused to travel while his wife went through a high-risk pregnancy.
Bruno Loranger was an Ottawa-based bilingual labour relations officer for the Customs and Immigration Union (CIU), a national union representing federal public servants working for the Canada Border Services Agency. His duties included providing assistance, guidance, counselling and representation for union members, which sometimes required travel about two or three times per year.
Loranger had a son with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which put a significant demand on Loranger and his wife. This was exacerbated by the fact Loranger’s wife had two miscarriages and became pregnant again in September 2008. This latest pregnancy was labeled high-risk by doctors.
Loranger advised his director that he would not be able to travel during his wife’s pregnancy because of the demands of the pregnancy and his son. The director took this to be a favour request and said she could fill in for him on one matter that required travel to Montreal but she would be on disability leave in January 2009. There were no other bilingual labour relations officers who could cover for Loranger once the director went on leave.
However, the union executive felt it needed the director to be in the office so she couldn’t replace Loranger in Montreal. Loranger emailed the executive asking why his accommodation request was refused. The executive replied that the director’s offer was conditional upon approval, travel requirements were limited and he was given plenty of notice, so accommodation wasn’t necessary.
Loranger went on sick leave and filed a grievance. While he was gone, two co-workers filed a harassment complaint against him but the CIU found there was no harassment. However, Loranger felt this was an attempt by his employer to hurt him in light of his request.
Loranger claimed the CIU was discriminating against him because of his family status by not accommodating his request for no travel. He said travelling to Montreal would get him home too late to help his wife care for his son at the end of the day, which would put too much of a burden on her in her condition.
You Make the Call
Should the CIU have accommodated Loranger’s request for no travel?
OR
Was the CIU not obligated to fulfil Loranger’s request?
IF YOU SAID the CIU wasn’t obligated to fulfill the request for accommodation, you’re right. The arbitrator found travel was rare and the only time Loranger was expected to travel was to Montreal, which was a relatively short commute. If he was required to go to Montreal, he would be back by late afternoon, said the arbitrator. On the off chance he was delayed, it still would only leave his wife alone with their son “for a couple of hours on a couple or perhaps three occasions over a six-month period.” In addition, since he was allowed to go on sick leave, Loranger didn’t actually have to travel and he wasn’t disciplined for taking the leave.
The arbitrator also found Loranger didn’t make any rational assessment of his childcare options and simply said there was no one available. Though he claimed two sisters-in-law worked full-time and were unavailable, he didn’t explain why one of them or a baby-sitter could not be called upon for a couple of hours if needed. In addition, the arbitrator found it strange that they didn’t have any sort of backup care plan since their child was a special needs child.
