Upsetting the Apple Cart

"I cannot see how a person who is doing a simple manual labour job can be in 'training' or be called a 'trainee' for more than ten years."
"I find that the respondent (Stacey Szuch, Janus Joan Inc.), likely with the agreement of the parents of workers with developmental disabilities, intentionally set the honorarium level just under the threshold for clawback of ODSP payments in order to maintain the receipt of such payments from the government."
Ken Bhattacharjee, vice-chair, Ontario Human Rights Tribunal

DreamPictures, Shannon Faulk via Getty Images

Justice is once again done, thanks to the intervention of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In its 33-page decision concluding that a packaging company employing both intellectually disabled employees and those not suffering from any kind of disability, the tribunal found against the company and for one of its employees in a case named Garry versus Janus Joan Inc., based in St.Catharines, Ontario.

Terri-Lynn Garrie will be paid roughly $187,000 in lost wages and 'compensation for injury to her dignity', the fine levied by the tribunal against the packaging firm Janus Joan Inc., and its owner, Stacey Szuch. Ms. Garrie, now 45, is intellectually disabled, one of among ten disabled workers employed by the company. During the hearings related to this case, it emerged that Ms. Garrie's mother, Marjorie Tibbs also worked for the company.

Marjorie Tibbs worked there in a supervisory capacity and she and another daughter, along with other able-bodied employees, were paid the going minimum hourly wage, in full knowledge and evident assent that her other, disabled daughter was being paid between $1 and $1.25 an hour. The Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), an arm of the Ministry of Community and Social Services provides income and employment support for the disabled.

In her self-defence, Stacey Szuch, whose company Janus Joan Inc. is no longer in business, wrote in a formal response to the allegations, that if her firm "discriminated against (Garrie), then (her) mother, the social services, agencies, the applicant's support worker and the Family Benefits/ODSP office were all co-discriminators." The tribunal's vice-chair noted "This may be true".

It would appear that the business owner, the company, the ODSP and the parents of disabled workers were all in full knowledge of the fact that though at one time "handicapped" employees were given permission under Ontario law to be paid less than minimum wage, legislation was later amended in conformation with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (equality of all under the law) to ensure they were paid the same as anyone else.

But Ms. Garrie's mother, and social service agencies were aware that this discrepancy prevailed, paying the disabled far less than the abled. And they found it to be acceptable on the theory that providing the disabled with some form of useful employment aided their self-esteem. Giving them a routine, making them feel as though they were contributing just like anyone else, as independent and capable individuals. And placing them among others, in a social work setting.

Ms. Garrie's mother testified that she and her husband were not entirely comfortable with the pay differential, but made no complaint because they could see their intellectually impaired daughter clearly enjoyed her work and the socializing that accompanied it. And she also felt there was additional compensation in that Ms. Szuch "treated her (Garrie) respectfully".

In her defence, again, Ms. Szuch pointed out that the disabled workers were not required to punch in, were permitted to play cards and make crafts while "on the job". She said that Ms. Tibbs "became a supervisor and her duties included overseeing the trainees, including (her daughter), and giving the trainees their bi-weekly allowance/honorarium." From which testimony one can readily infer that giving employment in this company to the disabled was a compassionate act of kindness.

fotolia   The firm was paying much less than minimum wage to intellectually disabled workers.  

 

She tabled a letter signed by Marjorie Tibbs where she described herself as the "floor supervisor" of a disabled employee who felt enitled to "pick and choose what job he would do". Human Rights vice-chair Mr. Bhattacharjee made note that the letter more than adequately served to demonstrate that the mother acted within the arrangement she herself brought suit against, as well as outlining that disabled workers at the firm had responsibilities.

Responding, Mr. Szuch iterated her company was not providing "supported employment", but instead "volunteer trainee" placements for the disabled where they had far fewer responsibilities than regular staff, and for those fewer responsibilities they were paid an honorarium. The ODSP "clawed back" from their support payments any earnings that reached above a certain level. The honorarium was sufficiently modest to ensure that such claw backs did not ensue.

The business owner, Stacey Szuch has since declared bankruptcy and ceased operations. And Terri-Lynn Garrie sits unhappily at home, unemployed, reclusive and morose. So much for righting a perceived wrong. When those protesting a situation that has benefited them have not thought ahead to reason whether their protests would, in the final analysis, bring results that might reflect their best interests.

Chlo‘ Ellingson / St. Catharines resident Terri-Lynn Garrie, who has a developmental disability, has been awarded more than $142,000 in back wages, more than $19,000 for wrongful dismissal and $40,000 in damages in a ground-breaking ruling after working 10 years at a local packaging company.