The law is clear that an employer must accommodate employees with a "disability" up to the point of undue hardship. In most cases no one disputes that the employee is disabled. In some cases, though, it isn't clear that the employee has a disability that needs any accommodation at all.
Riche v. Treasury Board
This issue came before the Public Service Labour Relations Board in Riche v. Treasury Board. The employer and worker had an ongoing dispute about his attendance. The employer set rules for when and how he had to tell his supervisor that he would be late or absent, and disciplined him for not following them.
The worker argued that the reporting conditions were arbitrary, amounted to harassment that made his attendance worse, and ignored his medical and emotional problems. He testified that on many occasions he was depressed, stressed, suffered from sleep apnea or drank too heavily, and that the employer knew or should have known this.
The Adjudicator rejected his position, finding that he was confusing an "ailment" with a disability:
"The grievor's submission also overstated the nature and extent of an employer's duty to accommodate. As a general rule, the duty to accommodate arises for issues that an employee cannot control. A paraplegic cannot walk up stairs. An alcoholic cannot physically or psychologically resist the lure of alcohol. Such employees are not able to perform the tasks expected of them without outside help. That is the meaning of "disabled." Hence, the duty to accommodate. But employers are not under a duty to accommodate issues that an employee is able to control. If the employee habitually sleeps through his or her alarm, then he or she must get a second clock, put their single alarm clock across the room where it cannot easily be reached or go to bed earlier. All those steps were within the grievor's control. There was no evidence that he tried any of them. In the absence of such evidence, he could not establish that the reporting conditions were outside his control. And, if he could not do that, he could not establish that he was disabled from being able to give timely notices of his latenesses or absences." (paragraph 132)
The worker had provided no evidence of a disability that prevented him from meeting the reporting requirements. If he had led objective evidence of an actual disability that did, the result would have been different.
Where is the threshold?
As the adjudicator pointed out, not everyone who drinks too much is an alcoholic. Alcoholism becomes a disability when a person has a diagnosed chronic condition that makes them unable to stop drinking excessively.
Similar misconceptions exist about stress. Some stress is part of most jobs, and experiencing stress doesn't make someone disabled. However, many chronic mental health conditions triggered by stress must be accommodated.
Deciding whether an employee is disabled can be legally and medically difficult. Where is the line between someone who likes to "party" and someone with the disability of alcoholism? Get legal advice when it's unclear whether an employee's "ailment" will be considered a disability that requires accommodation.