09.07.2015 Views

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

54does have the duty, if it can do so without undue hardship, to arrange the employee’s workplace orduties to enable the employee to do his or her work. (para. 16). The Court also stated that“[b]ecause of the individualized nature of the duty to accommodate and the variety ofcircumstances that may arise, rigid rules must be avoided. If a business can, without, unduehardship, offer the employee a variable work schedule or lighten his or her duties – or evenauthorize staff transfers – to ensure that the employee can do his or her work, it must do so toaccommodate the employee.” (para. 17.) (See also Jonhstone v. Canada Border Services, supra,at para. 218.)[194] CN argues that if accommodation was required under the CHRA, “reasonableaccommodation” was provided by it granting the Complainant more than four (4) months toreport to Vancouver, rather than the minimum fifteen (15) days set out in the CollectiveAgreement. CN further states that granting the relief sought by the Complainant would constituteundue hardship because it would effectively grant all employees who are parents an equivalent to“super seniority” under the Collective Agreement solely on the basis of their status as parents.2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)[195] I will address first the claim that “reasonable accommodation” was provided.[196] CN argues that providing extra time to the Complainant to report to Vancouver was all thatit was required to provide. However, the evidence clearly shows that that was not in any way ameaningful response to the Complainant’s request and to the factual underpinnings of hersituation which she had communicated to the employer through her correspondence.The evidence also shows that the decision was made without anybody discussing it with theComplainant.[197] The evidence establishes that the Complainant wrote to Mr. Torchia and to other seniormanagers at CN setting out the details of her family situation, her assessment of why her familyduties and responsibilities prevented her from reporting to the shortage in Vancouver. She hadalso clearly indicated that she was ready and willing to cover all aspects of her job as a Conductorin Jasper where she had the necessary child care and family supports.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!