Employees who hate working…a human rights issue?

work-stressAn employee who hates working and being managed by his or her supervisor – Can this become a human rights issue in the workplace? Well it depends; but I recently learned at a conference that I attended that an employee who hates working and being managed can actually raise a human rights issue in the workplace.

How can this be possible you say?

Employees have to work and listen to their managers’ instructions – that is why they earn employment income. Employers have the right to manage within their workplace.

A human rights issue may arise when an employee is so discontent with working and being given instructions that the employee develops a “disability” under human rights legislation in the form of “stress”, “blood pressure issues”, or a similar ailment, and gets a doctor’s note confirming that the workplace is making the employee ill.

For instance, an employee may obtain a doctor’s note and request a leave of absence due to “stress” from working. There could even be a situation where management and the employee have a dispute, the employee makes demands, management refuses to meet all the demands, the employee becomes ill and obtains a doctor’s note confirming the illness, and the employee insists on, and/ or threatens a constructive dismissal claim against the employer.

Under these circumstances, most employers would want to immediately terminate that employee.

However, I learned at the conference that it may not be in the employer’s best interests to act hastily and terminate the employee. Just because the employee is trying to use illness in order to justify his or her autonomy, a “disability” may be present, and the employer is recommended to follow a disability management process by:

  • Obtaining medical evidence in order to understand the nature of the employee’s disability and the leave requested;
  • Engaging in discussions with the employee in order to learn of his or her situation, accommodation needs, and options;
  • Requesting any additional medical information and opinion necessary in order to understand the employee’s limitations to perform work to properly accommodate; and
  • Working with the employee (and union if applicable) to facilitate an early return from a disability leave of absence to the previous job, or previous job with modifications, or a more appropriate job, or last resort – termination with a package (seek legal advice before doing this).

Whatever happens, employers are not recommended to say they refuse to accommodate the employee. The ideal situation is for an employer to offer the employee options without giving up management rights.

Communication, transparency, and effective disability management goes a long way in achieving a solution to this type of issue. For the confrontational employee who refuses to be managed – be proactive, patient, objective and apply your progressive discipline policy.

In a recent newsletter from the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, I read about a new free resource The Workplace Mental Health Promotion: A How-To Guide – that provides both employees and employers with the tools and resources they need to create a healthy workplace. You should take a look.

I am sure it could help your company when next you encounter this type of situation where a human rights issue arose from a similar situation.

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Editor

Share

Related Posts

Imagen 1

Employees with disabilities – accommodation strategies (Part I)

Accommodating employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship under human rights legislation can be a complicated task. It’s important to make sure the accommodation process goes smoothly and the employee can focus on working as efficiently as possible, but employers may not be sure about what kinds of questions to ask disabled employees in order to meet their needs.

Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD

Read more
Imagen 1

Slaw: Canadian Human Rights Commission’s controversial ‘anti-hate’ policy

The Canadian Human Rights Commission recently posted a policy on its website concerning how it interprets and applies section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) when it receives an inquiry or complaint. The purpose of section 13 of the Act is to balance Canadians’ rights to equality and freedom of expression with respect to hate messages, as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The parliamentary record indicates that section 13 was initially included in the legislation to address activities of individuals and groups who used the telephone system to disseminate hate messages. In December 2001, parliament amended the CHRA by adding section 13(2), which makes it clear that Internet hate messages come under the jurisdiction of the commission.

Read the whole article on Slaw.ca.

Marie-Yosie Saint-Cyr, LL.B. Managing Editor

Read more
Imagen 1

The new age of workplace gossip – TMI!

I’ve discussed workplace gossip here before, and what bosses can do to prevent it or at least reduce the potential harm, but there are a couple of hyper-modern developments that I didn’t get into: reality television and the Internet. These two things have created a culture of “sharing”, for lack of a better word, that encourages people at play or work to divulge the most mundane and private details of their lives to others—the kind of information that one previously might only have shared with family or best friends.

Adam Gorley

Read more