Labour Arbitration Preferred Over Human Rights Adjudication

A recent decision out of Manitoba, Northern Regional Health Authority v. Manitoba (Human Rights Commission), 2016 MBQB 89, examines the overlapping jurisdiction between labour arbitration boards and human rights tribunals with respect to complaints of prohibited discrimination in employment.

Linda Horrocks worked as a health care aid in a personal care home for the Northern Regional Health Authority (the "Employer"). Her employment was governed by a collective agreement between the Employer and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 8600 (the "Union"). Horrocks struggled with an alcohol addiction. As a result of a grievance settlement arising out of an incident of intoxication at work, Horrocks, the Employer and the Union signed a memorandum of agreement whereby the employee agreed to abstain from consuming alcohol.

Shortly after entering into the agreement, the Employer was informed that Horrocks was observed to be visibly intoxicated outside the workplace and, on another occasion, was suspected to be intoxicated during a telephone call. Horrocks denied drinking. She was dismissed from employment. Neither Horrocks nor the Union grieved the dismissal. Instead, approximately six months later, Horrocks filed a complaint of discrimination with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. She alleged that she had been subjected to discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and, specifically, that she was dismissed because of her alcohol addiction.

The adjudicator determined that she had jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint under The Human Rights Code, C.C.S.M. c. H175 (the "Code"). She then held that the complainant had a disability related to alcohol addiction within the meaning of the Code, she required accommodation in the workplace on the basis of that disability, and she was treated adversely by the Employer and her disability was a factor in that treatment. Finally, the adjudicator concluded that the Employer failed to meet the onus of showing that its actions were justified; it could not demonstrate that it had made reasonable efforts to accommodate the complainant to the point of undue hardship and/or that the conditions it imposed were bona fide occupational requirements.

The Employer applied for judicial review of the adjudicator's decision, arguing, in part, that she erred in law when she accepted jurisdiction over the complaint. The essential nature of the dispute, the Employer said, was within the exclusive...