IMMIGRATION EMPLOYEE IN LABOUR DISPUTE OVER PERFUME

I thought it was a joke, but it is a real story.No wonder their processing times are so long!

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Civil+servant+scent+labour+dispute/5027248/story.html

Civil servant in the scent of a labour dispute

Adrian Humphreys, National Post • Jun. 30, 2011
Last Updated: Jun. 30, 2011 3:02 AM ET

A federal civil servant who says he took 11 weeks of sick leave because his colleagues wore too much perfume and cologne wants all of his sick time allotment restored, claiming his employer failed to accommodate him.

Terence Juba, who processes immigration applications for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in Vegreville, Alta., said his debilitating scent sensitivity was triggered by certain fragrances he detected in the office, requiring him to use far more than the 187.5 hours of paid sick leave allowed under the Public Service Alliance of Canada collective bargaining agreement.

When Mr. Juba put up a scent-free zone sign, his colleagues did not respond well, he told a Public Service Labour Relations Board.

"They took the view that they were entitled to wear deodorant, use soap and wear perfumes, and in profane terms, they told him to mind his own business," the board said, summarizing evidence at a recent hearing.

After his complaints, the office imposed a scent-free policy, unfortunately introduced on April Fool's Day in 2006.

The policy, sent to all employees, says: "Respecting a scent-free policy means ceasing to wear or use items that have a scent attached to them by artificial means."

Four months after the policy implementation, which he said was largely ignored, Mr. Juba filed his grievance to refill his exhausted sick day bank. "I grieve that I had to use my sick leave credits for time missed due to the scent issues in the office," he wrote.

His sick days were used over three years.

He testified he has suffered scent sensitivity all his life. His symptoms can include headaches, runny nose, nosebleeds, lack of concentration and irritability. He sought medical aid but was told by doctors there was no cure.

The government, however, said it "did everything in its power" to accommodate Mr. Juba. He was moved to different locations in the building. He was bought an air purifier. The airflow in the office was tested. The manager called in an external consultant to speak with staff, and employees were reminded regularly of the concern over scent, the labour board heard.

To compensate for the negative balance in his sick leave, Mr. Juba was allowed to work overtime, which could then be exchanged for additional sick leave credits. Mr. Juba worked the overtime but then chose pay instead.

Mr. Juba did not provide medical information that a particular accommodation was required and did not present any evidence that the employer caused him to work in an unsafe or unhealthy environment, the board heard.

An earlier complaint by Mr. Juba to the Workers' Compensation Board declared his sensitivity was not a disability and not compensable.

Mr. Juba had no more success with the labour board.

Paul Love, the adjudicator, dismissed the claim last month, saying Mr. Juba did not call any medical evidence to establish the extent of his scent sensitivity or what needed to be done to alleviate it.