AUPE, Local 048 v Bethany Care Society
Michael J. Hughes, Arbitrator — April 22, 2026

How far does the duty to accommodate extend when an employee cycles through multiple medical leaves, workplace investigations, and modified work arrangements over three years? In AUPE, Local 048 v Bethany Care Society, 2026 CanLII 40173 (AB GAA), Arbitrator Michael J. Hughes found that the employer met its legal duty to accommodate throughout – and that an allegation of retaliation for filing a human rights complaint was equally without merit.

Background

Tracy Breton worked as a Health Care Aide at Bethany Care Society (BCS), a non-profit long-term care provider in Alberta. Between 2021 and 2024, Breton experienced recurring medical leaves related to a physical disability. During that period, BCS engaged in multiple accommodation meetings, developed modified work arrangements, processed WCB claims, administered short-term disability benefits, and obtained functional abilities forms to guide its accommodation efforts.

The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees filed three separate grievances on Breton’s behalf (in 2022, 2023, and 2025), each alleging that BCS had failed in its duty to accommodate her physical disability. The Union also alleged that BCS retaliated against Breton after she filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

The Decision

Arbitrator Hughes undertook a thorough review of the accommodation steps taken by BCS across all three grievance periods. The legal framework is well-established: an employer’s duty to accommodate is substantial, but it is not unlimited. It requires meaningful engagement with the employee and their medical information, exploration of viable options, and implementation of reasonable modifications short of undue hardship.

On the evidence, the arbitrator found that BCS had consistently engaged in the accommodation process. It responded to medical documentation, adjusted Breton’s duties and schedule as information became available, and revisited its approach as her condition and restrictions evolved. There was no failure to accommodate at any stage.

The retaliation allegation was similarly dismissed. The Union alleged that adverse actions taken against Breton were motivated by her decision to file a human rights complaint, but the evidence did not support a causal link between the complaint and BCS’s conduct. All three grievances were denied.

Key Takeaway

This case is a useful reminder that the duty to accommodate is a two-way street, and that a sustained, well-documented accommodation process can withstand repeated challenges. Employers in health care and other sectors dealing with recurring disability-related absences should maintain detailed records of every accommodation step – meetings, medical correspondence, modified duties, and the rationale for each decision. When the process is robust and responsive, grievances alleging failure to accommodate (and even retaliation) are unlikely to succeed.