- Collective agreement
- Heart attack
- In the course of employment (union activity)
- Loss of earnings {LOE} (eligibility) (impairment)
- In the course of employment (professional development activity)
The employer sought the following in this appeal: a) the rescindment of initial entitlement to benefits for the December 1, 2017 myocardial infarction; and, b) rescindment of entitlement to full LOE benefits from December 2, 2017 to February 19, 2018.
The appeal was allowed. The Panel found that the worker was not in the course of employment during the union leadership conference he attended. The worker was a police constable. He was also a member of the Board of Directors of the police association (the union) and the union director, which was noted to be a personal decision. The conference was an executive union leadership conference, which was open to members of the police union and other external union members. The conference was not specific to policing. The worker was not considered to be on duty during the conference. Decision No. 1138/12 found that workers who received their regular pay for the time they attended a workshop was "not sufficient to establish an employment nexus." The Vice-Chair found that "the fact that a worker undertakes professional development does not necessarily place that professional development in the course of employment where the employer has had no direction or control." What is considered probative is the evidence pertaining to the nature of the activity the worker was engaged in at the relevant time. In addition, the employer giving the worker permission to attend the conference (without loss of salary or benefits) did not put the worker in the course of employment while he attended the conference (see Decision No. 1959/15). The Panel in Decision No. 1091/96 found that activities which are incidental to employment include activities which are privileges of employment, such as an incentives programs, where "when enjoyment of those privileges involves the furtherance of business interests."The Panel determined that the worker attended the conference as an executive director of the union and not in his job as a police officer. Any benefit to the employer was tangential, which did not mean the worker was in the course of employment (Decision No. 1138/12). The Panel outlined the following additional considerations: a) the employer did not ask or direct the worker to attend the conference; b) attending the conference was not a condition of the worker's employment; c) the employer did not compel, ask or suggest that the worker go to the conference; d) the employer did not have any control or supervision over the activity the worker was engaged in during the conference; e) the employer did not have any input into the conference program nor was the employer aware of the activities it would entail; and, f) the employer did not pay for the worker's travel, accommodation or meal expenses.