Missed making three check-in phone calls to doctor
Jaskaran Sandhu had been under a second last-chance agreement (LCA) with his employer when on three separate days, he didn’t call his doctor’s office to check in.
Sandhu was diagnosed with an alcohol dependency in November 2011 and entered into a treatment facility. He returned to his job with Canadian Forest Products in the Isle Pierre, B.C., division in March 2012 and entered into his first LCA.
In October 2013, Sandhu had a relapse with alcohol but negotiated another LCA that stipulated he must call in to a doctor’s office every week day, attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, obtain a sponsor and complete the 12-step program. As well, he was required to submit to random blood and urine tests whenever requested by his physician.
The wording of the second LCA indicated it was “intended to truly be the last chance.”
On Dec. 31, 2015, which was a work day, Sandhu didn’t call the doctor’s office — which under the rules of the LCA was considered a positive test — but later Sandhu said he was sick and he thought that meant he didn’t have to call in.
On Jan. 4 and 5, 2016, Sandhu again missed calling in to the doctor. This time, he said it was because he was on vacation and thus wasn’t required to call in.
During a Jan. 6 meeting with the company, Sandhu didn’t accept responsibility for not calling in when he was required. On Jan. 7, Sandhu met with the doctor to discuss his recovery progress.
When he was asked how things were going with his sponsor, known as “Albert,” Sandhu said everything was fine. However, the doctor knew that Albert had died about three months previously, which indicated Sandhu hadn’t truly been in contact with him as specified in the LCA.
Sandhu was terminated on Jan. 11 for missing three separate days of call-ins. A letter spelled out the reasons and said in part: “You have failed to take any responsibility for your actions, and your post-incident conduct has shown that you have no intention of attempting to restore the employment relationship.”
Canadian Forest Products maintained Sandhu was not effectively pursuing a cure for his alcohol dependency and after the second LCA was breached, it was time to sever their relationship.
The union, United Steelworkers (USW), Local 1-424, grieved the dismissal and said Sandhu wasn’t terminated in the past when he missed calling the doctor, which gave him the feeling that 100 per cent compliance with the LCA was not required. By not contesting previous missed calls, the union said the LCA was rendered null.
USW also said the company had a continued duty to accommodate the employee.
But arbitrator Arne Peltz denied the grievance and found that Sandhu had exhibited deceitful behaviour when discussing the non-calls with Canadian Forest Products management.
“Sandhu’s answer during the investigative meeting was dishonest. He stated he didn’t think he had to call the doctor’s office and never had called in the past,” said Peltz. “He lied about having a sponsor and when confronted, gave no explanation. It emerged that Sandhu had been seriously deficient in following his treatment plan for months before the termination, but hid the breaches and never approached the doctor for help.”
Sandhu’s recovery was not going well, according to Peltz, and therefore the employer’s accommodation had its limits.
“Sandhu breached his monitoring obligations and effectively abandoned the AA program,” said Peltz. “It is undue hardship for an employer to continue accommodating an employee for whom the prospects of success are marginal.”
Reference: Canadian Forest Products and United Steelworkers, Local 1-424. Arne Peltz — arbitrator. Michael Wagner for the employer. Sarbjit Deepak for the employee. Feb. 20, 2017.
