Electrolyte imbalance delayed second dose; worker asked for medical exemption
An Alberta employer didn’t discriminate against a worker on the basis of physical disability when it refused to grant the worker an exemption from its mandatory vaccination policy due to a claimed electrolyte imbalance, an arbitrator has ruled.
The worker was employed as a heavy equipment operator for Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL), an oil and natural gas company based in Calgary. Her job involved operating a large machine, spending most of the day inside the cab on her own. There were never any concerns about her work and she served as a crew safety representative.
In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic arrived and CNRL implemented several safety protocols in accordance with public health measures, such as masking requirements, improved sanitation, physical distancing, and rapid testing of employees. However, the company experienced multiple outbreaks of COVID-19 at its worksites despite the protocols.
When vaccines against the virus became available in 2021, the company implemented a mandatory vaccination policy requiring employees to be fully immunized – two vaccinations, two weeks apart – by Dec. 1. It later moved the deadline to Dec. 21.
Exemption from vaccination policy
The policy allowed exemptions based on medical grounds and sincerely held faith-based beliefs, so the worker requested an exemption based on personal beliefs on Oct. 8. By Oct. 27, she hadn’t received a response, so she took a first vaccination.
According to the worker, she experienced an electrolyte imbalance as a side effect of her first dose of the vaccine, causing the feeling of “pins and needles” in her arms and legs, a racing hearbeat, and muscle soreness.
CNRL informed her that her request for an exemption based on personal beliefs was declined, so the worker applied for a medical exemption. She provided a note from her doctor stating that she had been advised to postpone the second dose of the vaccine until she had seen a specialist on Jan. 20. There was no information about the reasons for the postponement.
CNRL advised that it would grant an eight-week extension from the date of her first vaccination, but the worker said she had been advised by her doctor to postpone until seeing the specialist. The company formally refused the worker’s medical exemption request on Dec. 14, noting that electrolyte imbalance wasn’t a side effect officially supported by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization guidelines.
Request for medical exemption
The worker submitted another medical exemption request on Dec. 20, including a letter from her doctor stating that the worker suffered from an electrolyte imbalance as a reason for postponing her second dose, although the letter didn’t mention any symptoms. CNRL again refused the request, reiterating the reason for the initial refusal.
CNRL placed the worker on unpaid leave for non-compliance with the vaccination policy beginning Dec. 22. The worker advised that she didn’t consent to being put on unpaid suspension and she had medical documentation supporting her non-compliance.
In February 2022, CNRL asked the worker if she was planning to return to work, and a month later advised her that the vaccination policy was being adjusted and she was expected to return to work on April 4. The company requested a response by March 25 or else it would consider her to have abandoned her employment.
The worker indicated on March 23 that she hadn’t decided on her return as she was concerned about discrimination. The company again asked for a response about her intentions, and when she didn’t reply, it advised that she had abandoned her position as of April 12 and their employment relationship had ended.
Discrimination complaint
The worker filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of a physical disability.
The tribunal applied the three-part Moore test to determine whether discrimination had occurred and found that the worker’s electrolyte imbalance met the low threshold for a physical disability under the Alberta Human Rights Act – the worker was advised for a medical reason to delay her second dose. However, the worker’s medical documentation lacked details on symptoms, diagnosis, or treatment, the tribunal said.
The tribunal also accepted that the worker faced adverse treatment as she was placed on unpaid leave and ultimately lost her job due to non-compliance with CNRL’s vaccination policy, meeting the second part of the test.
However, the tribunal found no evidence that the worker’s electrolyte imbalance prevented her from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. An expert witness provided by CNRL testified that electrolyte imbalance is not a recognized contraindication for vaccination, to which the tribunal gave greater weight than the letters from the worker’s doctor, which didn’t explicitly state why the worker’s condition justified exemption from the vaccination policy or provide any diagnosis indicated by the medical expert that would prevent vaccination.
As a result, the tribunal determined that the worker failed to establish a connection between her physical disability and the adverse treatment she experienced. The worker’s discrimination complaint was dismissed. See Land v. Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2024 AHRC 146.
