The complainant responded that he did not require the EAP nor did he need to see a doctor. He was told that EAP was a confidential program that permitted employees to seek and obtain counselling through the program during paid working hours. The complainant reported these concerns to the employer (first his immediate supervisor and after that the human resources manager) who encouraged him to see his doctor and informed him about the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). In short, his two co-workers were poisoning his coffee! In 2010 the complainant experienced mental health issues for which he saw a physician and in 2011 he experienced substance abuse issues and commenced a 10-week non-residential treatment program through the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba.Īlso in 2011 the complainant reapplied for employment with the Government of Manitoba after being away for about five years, was rehired and was then subject to six months of probation.Īpproximately one month after being rehired by the Government of Manitoba the complainant began to suspect that two of his colleagues were tampering with the communal coffee pot, which led him to experience nausea, headaches, dry heaving, tiredness, confusion and excessive salivation. In 2009 the complainant returned to Winnipeg to look after his ailing father who had been diagnosed with lymphoma. In Leonhardt and Manitoba (Department of Finance), Re, 2018 CarswellMan 767 the complainant, an information technology specialist initially worked for his employer, the Government of Manitoba for approximately seven years (over the period of 1999 to 2006) when he relocated to Ottawa.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |