What's In A Scent?
Here's another news item about another federal civil servant who is fed up and isn't prepared to take it any more. His job, which pays rather well, guarantees a cushy retirement, is extremely secure in today's job market, and which gains him ample benefits, including time off for holidays and sick time - uh, there's the rub, sick time - is driving him to the dogs of distraction.
For this man, Terence Juba, has the misfortune to be extremely uber-sensitive to fragrances. Fragrance may make a lot of people sniff twice, but it makes Mr. Juba ill, very ill. This is what he says it does. And when he spoke to his co-workers about his physical and psychological aversion to scents, asking them to have some compassion for his condition, they were decidedly unimpressed.
They would, they asserted, use scented deodorants and soaps and if they felt so inclined, perfume. For it is their right as free people to conceal their natural odours that emanate from the depths of their whatever (cavities), by sweet-smelling, pungent, tart or musky, delicate or robust toilet waters should they wish to.
They seemed not to care at all that his scent sensitivity which he has suffered throughout his life, leads to symptoms including headaches, runny nose, nosebleeds, lack of concentration and irritability. Doctors, he claimed, informed him there was no cure for his condition. Yet he failed to present medical evidence to establish the depth of his sensitivity.
Which caused the Workers' Compensation Board and a labour adjudicator both to dismiss his claims. For the man, who processes immigration applications for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in Alberta, has felt it necessary to use his sick days under the bargaining agreement reached by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and he feels this to be unfair.
Odd, that: he claims to be ill as a result of exposure to ambient odours, yet he has no wish to use his sick days for time off when he feels ill. We speak here of the 187.5 hours over a three-year period of paid sick leave. And his claim has been lodged for the return of those hours, insisting that his employer had failed to adequately accommodate him.
His employer thinks otherwise, having gone to lengths that seem to counteract Mr. Juba's contention. In an effort to be accommodating to Mr. Juba's dire need to be protected from exposure to scents, he was moved to various locations in the building, provided with an air purifier, testing performed on the office air quality, and an external consultant engaged to speak with staff to remind them of scent concerns.
Moreover, Mr. Juba was given the opportunity to compensate for the negative balance in his sick leave record, through overtime work to be exchanged for added sick leave credits. It was his decision to work the overtime offered, but instead of credits, he preferred hard cash.
Dis-missed!
For this man, Terence Juba, has the misfortune to be extremely uber-sensitive to fragrances. Fragrance may make a lot of people sniff twice, but it makes Mr. Juba ill, very ill. This is what he says it does. And when he spoke to his co-workers about his physical and psychological aversion to scents, asking them to have some compassion for his condition, they were decidedly unimpressed.
They would, they asserted, use scented deodorants and soaps and if they felt so inclined, perfume. For it is their right as free people to conceal their natural odours that emanate from the depths of their whatever (cavities), by sweet-smelling, pungent, tart or musky, delicate or robust toilet waters should they wish to.
They seemed not to care at all that his scent sensitivity which he has suffered throughout his life, leads to symptoms including headaches, runny nose, nosebleeds, lack of concentration and irritability. Doctors, he claimed, informed him there was no cure for his condition. Yet he failed to present medical evidence to establish the depth of his sensitivity.
Which caused the Workers' Compensation Board and a labour adjudicator both to dismiss his claims. For the man, who processes immigration applications for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in Alberta, has felt it necessary to use his sick days under the bargaining agreement reached by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and he feels this to be unfair.
Odd, that: he claims to be ill as a result of exposure to ambient odours, yet he has no wish to use his sick days for time off when he feels ill. We speak here of the 187.5 hours over a three-year period of paid sick leave. And his claim has been lodged for the return of those hours, insisting that his employer had failed to adequately accommodate him.
His employer thinks otherwise, having gone to lengths that seem to counteract Mr. Juba's contention. In an effort to be accommodating to Mr. Juba's dire need to be protected from exposure to scents, he was moved to various locations in the building, provided with an air purifier, testing performed on the office air quality, and an external consultant engaged to speak with staff to remind them of scent concerns.
Moreover, Mr. Juba was given the opportunity to compensate for the negative balance in his sick leave record, through overtime work to be exchanged for added sick leave credits. It was his decision to work the overtime offered, but instead of credits, he preferred hard cash.
Dis-missed!
Labels: Health, Human Fallibility, Human Relations, Human Rights
posted by Pieface | 6:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home