What do recent decisions on remote work, vaccines mean for public servants with similar grievances?

Two recent labour board decisions could push the government to rethink how it tackles a backlog of similar grievances, lawyers say.

In one decision, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board found a government department had discriminated against an employee with PTSD by “recklessly” refusing his request to work from home.

The board ordered the department — Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) — to pay the employee $28,000 in damages and cover about two years of backpay.

In another recent decision , the board found the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) discriminated against a Christian public servant by refusing his request for an exemption to the federal government’s COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The public servant, Steven Porter, argued he was unable to accept a vaccination “that may contain and/or have used aborted fetal tissue/cells in the lab testing.” The board found his religious beliefs were sincerely held and awarded him $5,000 in damages.

Although the two cases dealt with vastly different subjects, lawyers who spoke to the Ottawa Citizen said both decisions draw on the same well-established legal principle, and both help illustrate the potential pitfalls of rolling out “blanket” policies for public servants.

Paul Champ, an Ottawa-based labour lawyer, represents clients who’ve filed similar grievances to the unnamed public servant in the PTSD case.

Amid the post–pandemic push to bring workers back into the office, Champ said many employers — not just the federal government — are routinely “dismissing legitimate accommodation requests” when applying return-to-office mandates.

In some cases, Champ said, employees who were granted work-from-home accommodations before COVID-19 have since had those accommodations revoked.