Differential Compensation for Disabled Teacher Upheld

January 28, 2013 | Dirk L. Van de Kamer

An Ontario arbitrator has ruled that a full
time teacher who, as a result of being accommodated for her disability worked a
half time schedule for a number of school years, was not entitled to a full
year’s teaching experience credit, sick leave credits or full benefits premium
payment while working half time.

For a number of years, the teacher, who
suffers from MS, taught one half of a full time teaching schedule, supplementing
her income with either sick leave or STD/LTD. 
After a number of years, she noticed her placement on the grid was not
what she’d thought it ought to be (while she’d received full credit for the
year in which she used sick leave credits for the days she did not work, she
did not for those years in which she was paid STD/LTD for non working days).
She contacted her Union and a grievance was filed alleging discrimination both
under the collective agreement and pursuant to the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”).

In finding no violation of the collective
agreement, the arbitrator ruled that the collective agreement specifically
contemplated the recognition of experience on a pro rata basis according to
actual time worked.  In effect, the
arbitrator ruled that the employee had become a part time employee as a result
of her accommodated work schedule.  As
such, the collective agreement provided for prorated teaching experience
credits, sick leave credits and benefits premiums.

As to the alleged violation of the Code,
the arbitrator relied on the Ontario Court of Appeal judgment in Orillia Soldiers Memorial Hospital, in
which the Court ruled that making adjustments on a salary grid for employees
who cannot work due to disability does not violate the Code, so long as they
are treated the same as other employees who, for whatever reason, cannot or are
not working.  The Union’s argument that
the Code had been violated because “but for” her disability, the Grievor would
have worked a full time schedule, was rejected. 
While recognizing the Grievor’s hardship, the arbitrator ruled that the
Code does not require employers to compensate employees for work that is not


This publication is provided as an information service and may include items reported from other sources. We do not warrant its accuracy. This information is not meant as legal opinion or advice.

Miller Thomson LLP uses your contact information to send you information electronically on legal topics, seminars, and firm events that may be of interest to you. If you have any questions about our information practices or obligations under Canada's anti-spam laws, please contact us at privacy@millerthomson.com.

© 2023 Miller Thomson LLP. This publication may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety provided no alterations are made to the form or content. Any other form of reproduction or distribution requires the prior written consent of Miller Thomson LLP which may be requested by contacting newsletters@millerthomson.com.