P.E.I. worker didn’t qualify for absence after taking second job
A federal arbitrator has upheld the dismissal of a Canada Post worker who didn’t show up after a three-month leave.
Aislin Gillis was a relief letter carrier for Canada Post in Charlottetown. She usually worked through breaks and lunch hours so she could pick up her two young children from daycare at the end of the day.
In February 2016, Gillis requested an unpaid leave because she felt she had “no work-life balance.” Canada Post believed she was applying for general leave of up to three months without pay, as provided for in the collective agreement. However, Gillis wanted more than three months off.
Canada Post looked at whether Gillis ought to be granted “care and nurturing leave” instead — another type of leave in the collective agreement for employees with pre-school aged children. It could last until the employee’s children were school age — up to five years — but employees couldn’t have another job during that time.
The union was concerned that if Gillis took care and nurturing leave, it would restrict her ability to take a part-time job. Gillis applied for general leave from April 3 to July 3, which was approved.
Gillis found a six-month temporary job during her leave and sent her children to daycare when she was working.
In June 2016, Gillis submitted a request for another six-month leave starting on July 3, making no reference to the type of leave but entering the code for “family responsibilities.” Canada Post denied the request due to staffing issues that had arisen from “annual leave congestion.”
Despite the fact that her request was denied, Gillis didn’t report to work on July 4 and she didn’t inform Canada Post of her absence. Canada Post sent her a letter and left messages requiring her to show up or face progressive discipline up to and including dismissal.
Gillis didn’t respond, so Canada Post sent her a second notice requiring her attendance or a satisfactory explanation for her absence. A third letter stated that it was possible she had intended the request to be for care and nurturing leave, but because she had another job she was ineligible. It ordered her to report by July 18 or be dismissed.
Gillis then applied for care and nurturing leave for six months, but the application was rejected. Canada Post gave Gillis one more chance to report but she didn’t, so it dismissed her on July 20. The union grieved the dismissal, claiming Canada Post failed to respond to Gillis’ needs and her entitlement to leaves under the collective agreement.
The arbitrator found that Gillis met the conditions for general leave, but she was working at another job when she applied for the care and nurturing leave — contrary to its purpose.
“The plain meaning of the language describing the leave in the context of a duration of up to five years (which is the normal age at which children go to school), leads me to the conclusion that the purpose of the leave is to enable a parent who works for Canada Post to get leave to allow them to personally stay at home and rear their children,” said the arbitrator, noting that many parents have to work and put their children in daycare, but the care and nurturing leave was specifically for the purpose of staying home with children.
The arbitrator also found that Canada Post could deny leave requests based on operational requirements, as it did in this case. There were staffing issues and Gillis’ position as a relief letter carrier was specifically intended to help with that type of situation.
Since Canada Post gave Gillis multiple opportunities to report to work or explain her absence and she failed to comply, the arbitrator determined that the corporation had grounds to terminate her employment.
Reference: CUPW and Canada Post. Bruce Archibald — arbitrator. Emily Rahn, Karen Campbell for employer. Jim Gallant for union. April 27, 2020. 2020 CarswellNat 2011
