- Board Directives and Guidelines (stress, mental) (traumatic event)
- Stress, mental (effect of employment decisions)
- Harassment (person in position of authority)
- Stress, mental (chronic)
The worker appealed two ARO decisions giving rise to the following issues: a) initial entitlement for traumatic mental stress (TMS); and, b) initial entitlement for chronic mental stress (CMS). The worker sustained a right elbow fracture which required surgical intervention. The worker claimed he was harassed by management following the return-to-work meeting on April 11, 2017.
The Panel denied the appeal.A worker is not entitled to benefits for mental stress under either policy that is caused by interpersonal conflicts in the workplace unless the conflict amounts to workplace harassment or involved "conduct that a reasonable person would perceive as egregious or abusive". The Panel applied the definition of "harassment" as set out in the case of Streeter v. HR Technologies Inc. The Panel found that it was not unreasonable for an employer to request that workers first utilize the resources available to them within their organization before contacting the WSIB. There was no evidence of significance to indicate that the employer punished the worker for contacting the WSIB nor was there any evidence of significance that they threatened to punish the worker. Accordingly, the employer's request was within the employer's function and not demonstrative of behaviour that was annoying or distressing within the definition of workplace harassment as found in Streeter. The Panel noted that the worker's perception, although a relevant consideration, was not determinative. The worker's perception regarding the events in question should be reasonably corroborated or supported by other reliable evidence (see Decision No. 672/23).The Panel accepted that there was a tense and strained relationship between the worker and the employer during this time that centered around the worker's injury and the worker's perception regarding the return-to-work process and the support of the employer. The Panel accepted that this tension regarding the return-to-work process was superimposed on the worker's pre-existing anxiety and depression for which he was being treated for throughout this process. The worker's injury resulted in a significant change in the worker's lifestyle. The worker, who lives alone, experienced challenges in coping with his disability and was experiencing issues with sleep and chronic pain as demonstrated throughout the medical reporting, which may have influenced the worker's perception regarding his interactions with the employer. The Panel noted that although some of the actions of the employer were unusual, they did not constitute "a course of vexatious conduct." Further, the behaviour of the employer did not amount to egregious or abusive conduct.Even if the events occurred as the worker described, they were not traumatic within the meaning of the TMS policy. Based on the examples provided in the policy, a "traumatic" event is one in which the worker's personal health or safety are seriously threatened; and, in the context of workplace harassment, goes significantly beyond the behaviour that would be captured in the CMS policy. In the absence of establishing workplace harassment, the Panel concluded that the criteria for entitlement had not been met in either OPM Document No. 15-03-02 or 15-03-14.