News

SEND YOUR NEWSWORTHY VIDEOS TO VIDEOS@NEWSTALK1010.COM

Court rules in favour of employee who claims she was discriminated against for being a mother

Posted By: Michelle Rosa · 2/5/2013 6:04:00 AM

An important court ruling for parents who work outside the home and need child care.

The Federal Court has upheld a Human Rights tribunal decision, which essentially says employers must try to accommodate employees with family obligations.

Robyn Benson, head of the Public Service Alliance of Canada calls it "a huge win for Canadian workers with family obligations."  She tells the Star "it is clear now that employers must carefully consider each and every family status accommodation request and accommodate them short of undue hardship."

The case in question began 9 years ago at Pearson International Airport where Fiona Johnstone was working full time for the Canada Border Services Agency.  At the time full-time work meant rotating shifts and irregular hours but with a new child she was finding it impossible to make child-care arrangements. Border Services told her the only fixed shifts were part-time. She took it for 3 years but kept the complaint going.

The Federal Court has ruled Fiona Johnstone was "discriminated against on the basis of her family status. Border Services must now pay her the difference between her part-time and full-time pay and benefits for that three years and give her 20-thousand dollars in damages.

According to a spokesperson for Canadian Border Services, their policies were revised in June 2011 to accommodate these types of requests. The agency also has another 30 days to decide whether to appeal the ruling.

(files by D. Agar)

Leave a comment:

showing all comments · Subscribe to comments
Comment Like
  • 19
  1. Greg posted on 02/05/2013 09:11 AM
    Not sure I agree with this ruling. She was working full time when she got pregnant and knew full well the shifts she would be required to work. That gives her 9 months to secure child care arrangements.
    I work shift work and all the parents I work with - some single parents or parents whose partners also work shift work - all manage to have their kids looked after. Does becomng a parent mea you automatically get the coveted "Straight Day Shift"? A ittl personal responsibility on the parent is not too much to ask.
    1. jocelyn posted on 02/05/2013 10:32 AM
      @Greg I think this ruling opens up a whole new can of worms for abuse. It has been my expereince that people do abuse benefits like this and leave the other workers holding the bag. Certainly considerations must be given to family obligations and crisis, but this ruling has just left everything wide open. It needs to be clarified and boundaries set. Perhaps also, proof must be given of these "family obligations".
  2. Fiona Johnstone posted on 02/05/2013 10:52 AM
    Hello,
    I never asked for a static day shift. Greg, did both you and your spouse work ROTATING shifts that changed your days of work and your hours of work independent of each other?
    Things were clarified. Boundaries have been set. My families circumstances were very unique, less than one percent of the working population finds themselves in the cirucumstances I was in.
    Please read the original ruling for the details, if you wish.
    1. Greg posted on 02/05/2013 12:44 PM
      @Fiona Johnstone Hello, Fiona. Actually my wife works from home but I was referring to people with whom I work, some of whom are married to nurses whose days of work change all the time. I'm sorry but I don't see how it is the employer's responsibility to accomodate one's family situation. If they can, that's great but it is up to the employee to, who agreed to the terms of emplyment including shifts to make themselves available for those shifts. I would love to read the ruling. Could you provide a link? Thanks.
  3. Herry69 posted on 02/05/2013 01:30 PM
    this is why the courts made a decision. harper and the corruption party are inept at making one. my size 13 steel-toed boots need a really good workout on harpers face ! a--hole !
    1. susan posted on 02/05/2013 01:37 PM
      @Herry69 WOW....You are one angry, crazy dude! Articulate too! Get some help.
    2. Susan posted on 02/05/2013 01:41 PM
      @Herry69 WOW, you are one angry, psychotice dude! Articulate as well. You might want to get some help.
  4. Fiona posted on 02/05/2013 02:01 PM
    Here is the link to the original decision

    http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=1021&lg=_e&isruling=0
    1. Greg posted on 02/05/2013 04:01 PM
      @Fiona Thanks for providing that link, Fiona. Uhhhhhhh...way too long for me to read, sorry!
  5. Sandy posted on 02/05/2013 03:44 PM
    This is ridiculousness, it's not the employers fault that their employee makes a change to their personal life (by making the choice to have a baby). If I choose to move to Hawaii, does my employer have to accommodation me for my personal choice as well!?
  6. Mike posted on 02/06/2013 06:46 PM
    This is frigging crazy..as men can't get pregnant we should file a discrimination suit!
  7. Jimmy C posted on 02/07/2013 06:20 AM
    This ruling is important for teachers too, as many who had gone half-time to take care of young children were (and still are) being discriminated against, as the school boards are refusing to allow them to apply for full-time jobs now that their children are in school, and they no longer need to be home to take care of them. With this ruling, school boards (i.e., Durham Catholic) must review this discriminatory policy as they too will now be facing multiple human rights complaints over this same issue.
    1. KarenW_5 posted on 02/07/2013 12:42 PM
      @Jimmy C Wow, this ruling cannot apply to teachers - really - that's BS. How hard is it to find someone to watch your child from 8-3 with 2 weeks at Christmas, 1 week in March, a whole summer, every stat and how many PA days!!!. Please read the reason why this went to court - night shifts - not day shifts.
  8. Mark posted on 02/08/2013 09:40 AM
    so just asking. What do you make of people taking short term disability that isn't really warranted given a doctor has 'no right' to reject a request should a patient ask for a 'stress leave' notation? What about doctor's notes for "sick leave". My ol doctor started sending his patients a note about 4 yrs ago letting them know that he is charging $80/sick day note. I asked him about it when I saw him and he said I can't imagine how much of the requestss dropped just becuase of the $80. He finds that thos requesting now are 'real' cases. He said the worst is - the fake doctor's appointments take away from real patients that need patient care. Just saying - there's got to be a measure of authenticity and this should not be taken across the board.
    1. anne posted on 02/08/2013 10:31 AM
      @Mark You are so right Mark. I worked in the medical field for 22 years and I saw so much of this going on. In particular it would be public sector employees. There was one woman who stands out who wored at City Hall (Toronto) and she was blatantly ripping everyone off. She was off with pretty well full pay, benefits and yet travelling all over the place. She would get expensive diagnostic tests, all for naught. She had a "back" condition that just couldn't be proven or refuted. It happens ALL the time.
  9. KC posted on 02/08/2013 12:56 PM
    This is a typical news report - focusing at too high a level to give an accurate picture of what happened. I just read the full decision and this isn't about Canada Boarder Services being forced to accommodate family obligations. This is about CBS being forced to apply their policy on requesting exceptions evenly across the board.

    I raised 2 kids with both my partner and I working variable shift work and rarely seeing each other and I would never claim that a company should be responsible for the life decisions made by its employees. That is what the media and some special interest groups is portraying this case to be about.

    When I read the full decision that doesn't seem to be the case. My observation is that this is about a company that has a policy for considering exceptions for a variety of reasons but has said that if the request is for child care then the request will not be considered. That is discrimination.

    The fact that CBS updated their policies in 2011 seems to indicate that they acknowledge their policies weren't correct.
showing all comments

Videos

Trending