THE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS
Once it is determined there is need for reasonable accommodation, the employer must work with the employee to identify and implement possible reasonable accommodations. The process of reasonable accommodation usually follows the following steps as described the B.C Government public service agency.
1. Acquire the necessary information from the employee and experts on what are the requirements of accommodation for the conflict between employees prohibited grounds related to need and the workplace requirements (Public Service agency Province of British Columbia, 2008).
2. Consider possible of accommodating the employee in their current position without incurring undue hardship, if this is not possible, the employer may …show more content…
This employee had previously missed 960 days within 6 years due to her condition and was accommodated in her workplace. Her psychiatric evaluation indicated that she would not be able to return to work without continuing the problem of absenteeism and thus was dismissed for not being able to work in a regular and reasonable basis. A Complaint was filed by the employee with the Quebec human rights syndicate and arbitrator dismissed the grievance based on the fact that the employer is within rights to terminate the employee given the complainant was unable to reasonably work in the foreseeable future and the conditions of her return to work according to the unions’ expert constituted an undue hardship on the employer. The superior court upheld the arbitrators’ decision and so did the Canadian Supreme Court as her past absenteeism due to her illness provided cause for undue hardship along with the medical professionals lack optimism regarding her ability to return to work. Therefore, it is established in by the Canadian courts that an employee need not ignore the past in order to assess the undue …show more content…
Renaud, a school Custodian was unable to work from sundown on Friday to sundown Saturday due to his religious beliefs as a seventh day Adventist. The work schedule of the school district required him to work on Friday from 3 PM to 11PM as set in the collective agreement between the Okanagan school board and his union. He was not then dismissed from his position as the school board nor did the union agree on means to accommodate. B.C council of human rights found Mr. Renaud was discriminated on grounds of his religious belief as though the job requires that a custodian is required in schools, it is not a job requirement for Mr. Renauds’ school for the custodian to be in the school on Friday from 3-11pm. Mr. Renauds’ employer and union were both held liable for the failure to uphold the code of reasonable accommodation. This decision was upheld by the B.C court of appeal and the supreme court of Canada. The school boards claim that the presence of collective agreement with the union prevented them from accommodating was dismissed as the court found that the presence of collective agreements, nor contracts can absolve parties from their responsibility to reasonably accommodate as these must make way to the human rights law. However, it is important to assess the degree of hardship faced by the union and the employer in interfering with its terms (Canandian Human Rights Reporter,
Once it is determined there is need for reasonable accommodation, the employer must work with the employee to identify and implement possible reasonable accommodations. The process of reasonable accommodation usually follows the following steps as described the B.C Government public service agency.
1. Acquire the necessary information from the employee and experts on what are the requirements of accommodation for the conflict between employees prohibited grounds related to need and the workplace requirements (Public Service agency Province of British Columbia, 2008).
2. Consider possible of accommodating the employee in their current position without incurring undue hardship, if this is not possible, the employer may …show more content…
This employee had previously missed 960 days within 6 years due to her condition and was accommodated in her workplace. Her psychiatric evaluation indicated that she would not be able to return to work without continuing the problem of absenteeism and thus was dismissed for not being able to work in a regular and reasonable basis. A Complaint was filed by the employee with the Quebec human rights syndicate and arbitrator dismissed the grievance based on the fact that the employer is within rights to terminate the employee given the complainant was unable to reasonably work in the foreseeable future and the conditions of her return to work according to the unions’ expert constituted an undue hardship on the employer. The superior court upheld the arbitrators’ decision and so did the Canadian Supreme Court as her past absenteeism due to her illness provided cause for undue hardship along with the medical professionals lack optimism regarding her ability to return to work. Therefore, it is established in by the Canadian courts that an employee need not ignore the past in order to assess the undue …show more content…
Renaud, a school Custodian was unable to work from sundown on Friday to sundown Saturday due to his religious beliefs as a seventh day Adventist. The work schedule of the school district required him to work on Friday from 3 PM to 11PM as set in the collective agreement between the Okanagan school board and his union. He was not then dismissed from his position as the school board nor did the union agree on means to accommodate. B.C council of human rights found Mr. Renaud was discriminated on grounds of his religious belief as though the job requires that a custodian is required in schools, it is not a job requirement for Mr. Renauds’ school for the custodian to be in the school on Friday from 3-11pm. Mr. Renauds’ employer and union were both held liable for the failure to uphold the code of reasonable accommodation. This decision was upheld by the B.C court of appeal and the supreme court of Canada. The school boards claim that the presence of collective agreement with the union prevented them from accommodating was dismissed as the court found that the presence of collective agreements, nor contracts can absolve parties from their responsibility to reasonably accommodate as these must make way to the human rights law. However, it is important to assess the degree of hardship faced by the union and the employer in interfering with its terms (Canandian Human Rights Reporter,