First Reference Talks

Business, Payroll, Employment Law, Internal Controls & You!

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Free Updates

Environmental sensitivities: have they affected your workplace?

Author: Adam Gorley

Posted on Thursday, November 19th, 2009 at 09:30

Tweet

Imagine this: a customer enters your office or store and very quickly suffers an attack of some sort, causing her to break out in hives and have difficulty breathing. Employees remove her from the store, but she’s in such a state that she has to go to the hospital. You later discover that the customer suffers from environmental sensitivities, and unfortunately she had her first major attack at your workplace. Oh, and she claims she can no longer work because of the episode, so she’s suing you for damages and lost wages.

I admit, it’s a little far-fetched, but people do sue for injuries they incur at workplaces, and business-owners must be aware of the risks their premises present to both employees and the general public.

All workplaces harbour dangers. Whether it’s a manufacturing plant or an office, employees can suffer slips and falls, musculoskeletal and repetitive strain injuries, or even injuries from workplace violence. These are unfortunately common enough, but often we can see and understand their causes and consequently make plans to discourage or prevent them from happening. (Obviously not in all cases, particularly with violent behaviour.) However, what about risks that are more insidious, invisible and pervasive—dangers that exist all around, but which most people ignore or never even notice? Environmental and chemical sensitivities fall into this group, and sufferers experience them much worse than the average allergic customer walking through a department store cosmetics department.

In a 2007 Canadian Human Rights Commission report, Cara Wilkie and David Baker write, “Environmental sensitivities are a group of poorly understood medical conditions that cause people to react adversely to environmental triggers.” Further, “Individuals with environmental sensitivities experience adverse reactions to environmental agents that are prevalent throughout the built environment and include electromagnetic fields and the chemicals found in building materials, furniture, cleaning and copying products, fragrances and pesticides.”

You can see from this non-exhaustive list how difficult it might be to avoid the factors that cause environmental sensitivity reactions. What building or workplace doesn’t include all or most of these agents, whether as an integral part of the inside environment or brought in from outside? And worse, some of these factors arise from the construction of the building itself.

No doubt in the past decade you’ve heard about fragrance bans in public buildings and low volatile organic compound (VOC) paints, but these are just the most apparent dangers. It’s pretty easy to tell when a person’s perfume or cologne causes discomfort, or that paint smell, but what about an electromagnetic field? And maybe employers can rid their workplaces of fragrances and minimize VOCs, but computers, printers and cellphones?

The key is that recent case law in Canada has established environmental sensitivities as a veritable disability, and as such, sufferers are protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act or provincial/territorial human rights legislation. That is, employers must accommodate sufferers to the point of undue hardship.

You might find that worrisome, but as with any prohibited ground of discrimination, there is a procedure employers can follow to achieve the appropriate balance of accommodation.

The first step is simply recognizing that a problem exists and consequently acknowledging that the condition might require accommodation. Once the employer does this, it’s imperative to get an expert opinion on the matter—at the very least from a physician, but probably also from a specialist in environmental sensitivities. These opinions will help you understand the nature of the condition and what further steps you might have to take to accommodate it.

There are also a few general steps that all employers can take to address environmental sensitivities before they manifest. These include discouraging or prohibiting fragrances in the workplace, and developing a clear policy on cleaning products that applies to in-house cleaners and cleaning services that work on the premises. It’s equally important to implement an education program for employees and cleaning staff so they understand the rationale behind the measures and comply willingly. When it comes to the building itself, employers might have their hands tied, but in the event of renovations, they can choose to use the least-toxic products available to minimize residual sensitivity triggers, and they can also consider upgrading ventilation systems to improve airflow and remove toxins from the work environment.

Several court cases in Canada have revolved around accommodating environmental sensitivities. From these cases, it’s clear that the courts take environmental sensitivities very seriously, and will push employers to do everything they can to accommodate sufferers. Courts have ordered employers to install air cleaners and filters near affected employees; to allow sufferers to use private washrooms; to change an employee’s work hours so as to limit contact with others; to reassign the sufferer to another job that involves minimal contact with others; to move employees to different floors of the workplace; and more besides.

At the same time, courts have not invariably sided with employees. Instead they appear to have taken a balanced approach (as they should)—making sure that diagnoses of environmental and chemical sensitivities are reasonably clear and relevant and that employers and their employees cooperate on whatever solutions they come up with. That means employees must prove their conditions relate to their work, and they must accept reasonable accommodations offered by their employers. Employers can breathe a sigh of relief that they won’t face unreasonable demands from employees about a poorly defined range of conditions.

For a closer look at the complex issue of environmental and chemical sensitivities, read “The medical and legal perspective on environmental sensitivities” on HRinfodesk.

Have you encountered employees who suffer from environmental sensitivities? Has your workplace taken steps to minimize the dangers associated with the condition?

Adam Gorley
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Assistant Editor

Tags: accommodation, chemical sensitivities, compliance, Disability, environmental illness, environmental sensitivities, human rights, multiple chemical sensitivity, occupational health and safety, personal injury, policies and procedures

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 19th, 2009 at 09:30 and is filed under Health and Safety, Human Resources. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “Environmental sensitivities: have they affected your workplace?”

November 24th, 2009 at 10:14

Paul Therrien says:

We came across an employee who was having serious reaction (rash, runny nose) at work. When she left the workplace for a few days she be much better. After medical interventions an allergist determined that she was allergic to carbonless paper. After seeking to accommodate, we determined that there was no way to eliminate her exposure and she had to leave her job. This is the only case I have ever encountered where no accommodation was possible.

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 24th, 2009 at 13:27

Adam Gorley says:

Thanks for your comment Paul! I suspect in the coming years we will see different approaches to addressing and accommodating environmental sensitivities. Hopefully, these approaches will allow companies to avoid letting good employees go.

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

November 24th, 2009 at 13:29

Adam Gorley says:

In related news, the Canadian Green Building Council has found that “Making general [LEED] improvements [to buildings] is demonstrated to increase worker productivity for up to 6 per cent. Productivity gains pay for the cost of building and air quality improvements in less than two years.”

Find out more here.

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Note that some comments may be moderated. If you have not had an approved comment here before, your comment will be held for approval. We are glad to publish comments that address issues raised in the post or other comments on it and that contribute to a fruitful discussion. We do not publish comments that seek to promote commercial products or that seek personal legal advice. Although we do not require it, we ask that in making a comment you use your full name. You must supply a valid email address, which will not appear with your comment.




Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

  • Get Free Updates

    RSS and Email

  • 2012 Annual Ontario Employment Law Conference

    2011 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

    2010 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

  • Categories

    • Accessibility Standards
      • Integrated Accessibility Regulation
      • Standard for Customer Service
      • Standard for Employment
      • Standard for Information and Communications
      • Standard for the Built Environment
      • Standard for Transportation
    • Announcements
    • Conferences
    • Human Resources
      • Corporate Immigration
      • Employee Relations
      • Employment Standards
      • Health and Safety
      • HR Analytics
      • HRMS
      • Human Rights
      • Privacy and Security
      • Recruiting and Hiring
      • Training and Development
      • Union Relations
    • Internal Controls
      • Environmental Law
      • Finance and Accounting
      • IT, Privacy and Security
      • Not-for-Profit
    • Payroll
      • Benefits
      • Compensation
      • Source Deductions and Reporting
  • Recent Comments

      CommentLeslie D Foreman:
      I agree with the court decision. Granting a full 52 weeks leave for an adoptive...

      CommentDr. Mike Michael:
      While there are many factors associated with depression, a main cause is the...

      CommentAndrew Taillon:
      Thanks Chris. I would suggest that the confusion arises from the way damages were...



  • First Reference:
    @firstreference

    Yosie Saint-Cyr:
    @yosie23

    Adam Gorley:
    @agorley

  • Like us on Facebook!



  • Links

    • First Reference
    • HR eSource
    • HRinfodesk
    • HRtrack
    • Human Resources Advisor
    • PolicyPro
  • Blogroll

    • All About Information
    • Chambers on the Profession
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Governance & Risk Management Blog
    • Corporate Reporting to Stakeholders
    • Daniel A. Lublin Employment Law Blog
    • Doorey’s Workplace Law Blog
    • Employment & Human Rights Law in Canada
    • Human Right in the Workplace
    • International Corporate Governance
    • Leech Talks Risk
    • Marks on Governance
    • Osgoode Labour & Employment Law Society
    • SBH Lawyers blog
    • Slaw
    • Thoughts from a Management Lawyer
  • Post Archives

    • February 2012 (9)
    • January 2012 (26)
    • December 2011 (27)
    • November 2011 (24)
    • October 2011 (22)
    • September 2011 (34)
    • August 2011 (27)
    • July 2011 (25)
    • June 2011 (35)
    • May 2011 (29)
    • April 2011 (28)
    • March 2011 (27)
    • February 2011 (20)
    • January 2011 (22)
    • December 2010 (23)
    • November 2010 (23)
    • October 2010 (22)
    • September 2010 (24)
    • August 2010 (28)
    • July 2010 (26)
    • June 2010 (29)
    • May 2010 (32)
    • April 2010 (24)
    • March 2010 (22)
    • February 2010 (9)
    • January 2010 (11)
    • December 2009 (11)
    • November 2009 (14)
    • October 2009 (16)
    • September 2009 (11)
    • August 2009 (1)
  • Questions?

    Email us:
    editor[at]firstreference.com

Copyright © 2012 - First Reference | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Twitter | Facebook

WordPress theme designed by web design