A hospital employee had been away from work because of a disability for an extended period. Her collective agreement included a provision addressing termination when an absence reached three years. A union grievance challenged the employer's reliance on that provision, arguing that disability accommodation obligations could require a more individualized assessment.
In McGill University Health Centre (Montreal General Hospital) v. Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital général de Montréal, 2007 SCC 4, the Supreme Court considered whether a collective agreement could effectively establish in advance when the employer had done enough to accommodate an employee's disability. The competing principles were clear. A collectively negotiated agreement can structure leave and attendance expectations. Human rights law nonetheless obliges employers to assess accommodation according to an individual's circumstances.
The Court rejected the idea that the passage of the contractual period was automatically decisive. The duty to accommodate wasn't displaced simply because the union and employer had agreed on a three year absence clause. The tribunal had to consider the employee's circumstances, the available options, and whether further accommodation would cause undue hardship.
On the facts before it, the Supreme Court allowed the employer's appeal and restored the labour arbitrator's determination. The employee remained unable to return to work in the foreseeable future, and the arbitrator had examined the accommodation issue rather than blindly applying the clause. In that setting, the employer wasn't required to hold the position indefinitely.
This outcome is often misunderstood when reduced to the length of the absence. The Court didn't create a universal three year cap on medical leave. Nor did it decide that the existence of a union agreement excuses an employer from evaluating individual needs. The point is that negotiated provisions are relevant, but not a substitute for the human rights analysis.
For employers, unions and workers, good documentation of capacity, possible modifications and likely return dates matters. An indefinite absence may eventually reach the limits of reasonable accommodation, but that conclusion needs to follow from the evidence rather than a calendar alone.
Source: Supreme Court of Canada, McGill University Health Centre v. Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital général de Montréal, 2007 SCC 4, https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2339/index.do