View cases - Stewart McKelvey

16[69] Witnesses for both parties testified that to their knowledge, as senior managers andemployees, there has never been full implementation of the orders in Brown that speak to creatingpolicies of accommodation which demonstrate an acceptance of the family status obligations ofan employer as defined by Brown.2004- 2007[70] 2004: After Ms. Johnstone filed her complaint on April 23, 2004, the CHRC Investigatorappointed found that CBSA differentiated between classes of employees, permitting employeeswho sought relief from the rotating shift schedule for medical reasons to remain full-time, whilerequiring those who sought the same relief for reasons of childcare to work part-time. Part-timeallocations of work, for childcare reasons are defined by the CBSA as meaning up to 34 hours perweek. The Investigator also found that the Respondent’s evidence of operational concerns was an“impressionistic assumption” and that the Respondent had failed to provide a justification for thepolicy in question. The CHRC Investigator recommended at that time that the complaint bereferred to the CHRT.2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)[71] December 2005: An exhibited internet website page, published by CBSA HumanResources, contained excerpts from a “GTAR Newsletter”. GTAR is an acronym that stands forGroupe de travail des associations de retraités des secteurs, public et parapublic. This newsletterexcerpt touts a proposed CBSA mandatory Employment Equity Program, and the formation oflocal committees within CBSA to implement short and long-term plans based on an EmploymentEquity Plan filed in April 2005. The following statements appear in reference to both theCanadian Human Rights Act (referred to below as a “Human rights Code”), the EmploymentEquity Act, and employment equity generally:a) “We will, through planning, implementing positive measures, monitoring andreporting, be able to chart our progress in this area, and demonstrate compliancewith a key piece of Canadian legislation.”…Many of us are balancing busy familylives with our work life; many of us have specific needs and wants from theorganization. While organizational requirements always come first, we know thatthe Human Rights Code prohibits unreasonable discrimination on a number ofgrounds. For a complete list of prohibited grounds see the link below….”