A judge has tossed out a human-rights ruling that gave a former Flin Flon health care aide compensation and her job back after she was fired over allegations of inappropriate drinking.
Linda Horrocks won a landmark Manitoba Human Rights Commission (HRC) case against the Northern Health Region (NHR) in September 2015.
The NHR challenged the ruling in the Court of Queen’s Bench. On May 6, a judge set aside the decision, agreeing with the NHR that the matter fell outside of the HRC’s jurisdiction.
Horrocks is now “entitled to file a grievance pursuant to the grievance procedure set forth in the collective agreement [between her union and the NHR],” wrote Justice James G. Edmond in his decision. “If the grievance is not resolved, the matter should proceed to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration procedure set forth in the collective agreement.”
Spokeswoman Twyla Storey said the NHR was pleased with the ruling and would seek to recoup its legal costs in accordance with the decision.
But in a news release sent to The Reminder Tuesday morning, the HRC said it would appeal the ruling.
“This decision is serious for Ms. Horrocks, but the impact goes well beyond this one individual,” said the HRC. “It could also limit options for all unionized workers in Manitoba to enforce their human rights. The decision has significant implications for how human rights are enforced in Manitoba.”
The HRC said it would file a notice of appeal in the coming weeks, outlining the grounds for the legal challenge.
Horrocks, a former health care aide at the Northern Lights Manor, was suspended in 2011 after allegedly going to work while under the influence of alcohol.
She was fired the following month after refusing to sign an agreement to abstain from alcohol at all times, even when not at work.
Horrocks grieved the firing and was rehired in April 2012 when she changed her mind and signed the no-alcohol agreement.
She never returned to work, however. She was fired again later that month when it was alleged she smelled of alcohol at a grocery store and sounded intoxicated in a phone conversation.
Horrocks proclaimed her innocence and took the matter to the HRC, which argued the NHR discriminated against her on the basis of her disability of alcoholism.
The NHR was ordered to rehire Horrocks, grant her full back pay and award her $10,000 in compensation “for injury to her dignity, feelings or self-respect.” Those steps were never taken because the NHR challenged the ruling.
In his Court of Queen’s Bench ruling, Edmond wrote he is satisfied that labour arbitration is a “better fit” for the dispute.
“In light of my findings, it is unnecessary for me to decide whether the adjudicator committed errors of law and whether the [HRC] adjudicator’s decision was reasonable,” he wrote.
Edmond added that if the NHR seeks to recoup costs and the two sides cannot agree on those costs, the court may address the matter.
One question arising from the case is whether an employer can compel an employee to refrain from drinking during non-working hours. Christine Thomlinson, a Toronto-based employment lawyer, previously told The Reminder that this was “an unusual condition,” but that it could be legal.
