Quesnel, B.C. employer entitled to more than brief notes to show worker fit for safety-sensitive job

A British Columbia employer was entitled to request additional medical information about a worker’s fitness to return to work in a safety-sensitive position, an arbitrator has ruled.

West Fraser Mills operates a plywood plant in Quesnel, B.C. where William Watt worked as a second-class power engineer. Watt went on medical leave in January 2019 with a doctor’s note stating that he couldn’t work for at least three months. About one month later, Watt provided a note advising that he was fit to return to work.

Watt went on medical leave again in September 2019. In late November, Watt confirmed with a doctor’s note — indicating that he was “medically stable” — that he could resume working on Dec. 6.

On March 18, 2020, Watt requested a three-month medical leave supported by a doctor’s note. About one month before his return date, Watt provided a note from his doctor saying that he was “medically stable and can return back to his job with full duties with no restrictions.” However, the company wanted more information indicating that he was fit to return.

The plant’s general manager told Watt they had concerns about safety since he had taken multiple medical leaves on short notice with only brief notes saying he was medically fit to return each time. Watt replied that he issues were related to mental health — he had anxiety.

The company asked Watt to sign a medical release, but Watt’s doctor didn’t think it was a good idea. He was told not to report to work at the end of his medical leave, as there were safety concerns without information indicating a change in Watt’s medical issues.

Watt maintained that seeing a company doctor wasn’t an option and the general manager suggested an independent medical examination (IME). Watt resisted.

Watt signed a release but wrote that it was only valid until Aug. 31. He received notification of an appointment for a psychological assessment on Aug. 26. Watt said an IME was unnecessary because he had already seen his doctor and was ready to return to work. The union filed a grievance saying that Watt wasn’t being allowed to return to work. The company responded that Watt hadn’t complied with medical clearance requirements.

The arbitrator found that “the plywood plant is a safety-sensitive environment and accidents can cause grievous injury to employees” and Watt’s job had “significant responsibility to maintain safety in the workplace.”

The arbitrator noted that West Fraser Mills didn’t raise any concerns about Watt’s ability to work safely when he returned from his previous medical leaves and Watt hadn’t committed any safety violations. Although Watt had been emotionally volatile in the workplace, this wasn’t a significant behavioural change as he had a history of being confrontational, the arbitrator said.

However, the arbitrator found that an employer is entitled to evidence that the employee is medically fit to return to work after an illness or injury. Watt went on medical leave three times within a 15-month period and the brief doctor’s notes didn’t give the company much to go on, the arbitrator said.

“The plywood plant is a safety-sensitive work environment and [Watt] has responsibilities to ensure the workplace is safe for himself and other employees,” said the arbitrator. “In these circumstances, I find that it is reasonable for the employer to require more than just the one-line note simply stating [Watt] is medically stable as medical confirmation of his fitness to work safely.”

The arbitrator determined that West Fraser Mills had reasonable grounds to hold Watt out of service until it received additional medical information to satisfy its concerns, but it allowed the grievance in part because an IME was too intrusive. The company was ordered to seek further medical information by less-intrusive means.