They Speak Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths
You will note that the following court decision was reached in 2002 for a complaint that was filed 5 years previous. The hearings ”lasted 71 days and took 5 years to complete.” This would have placed the timeframe of the following complaint to have been placed sometime in 1997 — a full three years post-”changes”, when the rules were allegedly relaxed.
You will note the highlighted portions of the court record, which I found here (My comments are italicized in brackets.):
3. Accommodation Duty Not Breached in Terminations for Refusal to Work Sabbath
Two employees working for Ford became members of the Worldwide Church of God. [In 1997?? The rules were supposed to have been changed by then. We weren't even regular attenders at services by 1996, and no one said "boo" to us. And we were 20+ year members.] The tenets of their religion prohibited them [Not in 1997, they didn't. Or they weren't supposed to.] from working on the Sabbath, which is sunset Friday until sunset on Saturday. At the time they were employed on alternate two weeks days/two weeks afternoons. As such, this shift schedule included work on Friday afternoons. The employees suggested several ways to have the Friday afternoon shifts covered but none was acceptable to the employer for a variety of reasons. Moreover, the union (the Canadian Auto Workers) took the position that any accommodation could not override seniority insofar as it related to shift preference, which was based on seniority. In this regard, the two employees did not have enough seniority to warrant such a request.
The employees request for accommodation was denied. The employees refused to work Friday afternoons. Progressive discipline was applied and eventually both employees were terminated. The employees filed a complainant pursuant to Ontario’s Human Rights Code alleging they were not accommodated as required, to the point of undue hardship. The hearings lasted 71 days and took 5 years to complete. The Board of Inquiry held that the Company did what it could in the circumstances and that no further duty was owed. This decision was appealed to Divisional Court.
The Divisional Court (of the Ontario Superior Court) split 2-1, on the question of whether Ford Motor Company could have accommodated workers who refused to work on the Sabbath. The majority held that even though there was a prima facie case made out, Ford could not have accommodated the complainants without undue hardship based on the impact of cost, safety, quality and the detrimental effect on morale.
The majority also held that the Union had an obligation to all of its members and as such had not failed in its duty to the complainants by not advocating for accommodation in this case. In this regard the Court said, “I find that the Union’s unwillingness to advocate for accommodations which significantly prejudiced other workers was not unreasonable.”
The Ontario Human Rights Commission has served Notice of Motion for leave to appeal.
Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Ford Motor Co. and CAW, Local 707 [2002] O.J. No. 3688 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court), Judgment: September 19, 2002.
