by Daniel Pugen and Earl G. Phillips
McCarthy Tetrault
In Canada, human rights legislation provides that employers have a duty to accommodate disabled workers unless such accommodation would cause “undue hardship” on the employer.
A recent case involving McDonald’s Restaurants before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal illustrates the high standard of accommodation expected of employers. It also shows the kinds of proactive measures employers may have to take before accommodation is considered “undue hardship.”
In the case, the tribunal found that McDonald’s improperly terminated the employment of a long-time employee. McDonald’s didn’t do enough to accommodate the employee who developed a skin condition that prevented her from working and meeting the restaurant’s hand-washing policy.
Facts
Beena Datt started working at McDonald’s within three months of moving to Canada in 1981. After working at the same restaurant for 20 years, she developed a skin condition. As a result, over the next three years, she was unable to work for long periods of time. She was on disability benefits and unsuccessfully attempted to return to work three separate times. She tried various treatments as well as working with gloves, but nothing helped. She was always eager to return to work.
Ms. Datt’s doctor eventually stated that she couldn’t work in a restaurant. McDonald’s then terminated her employment.
McDonald’s argument
To support the termination, McDonald’s argued that:
- it has strict hand-washing policies to meet health and food safety requirements;
- restaurant employees work as a team, and all positions must help out as needed;
- it had accommodated three lengthy absences and return-to-work attempts;
- and the employee’s own doctor had determined that she couldn’t work in a restaurant.
McDonald’s claimed that it had therefore met its duty to accommodate Ms. Datt and that the termination wasn’t in breach of the B.C. Human Rights Code since allowing her to come back to work would cause them “undue hardship.”
Decision
The tribunal didn’t accept McDonald’s’ arguments and found that the company had breached its duty to accommodate Ms. Datt’s disability.
Since Ms. Datt no longer wanted to work for McDonald’s, the tribunal didn’t order reinstatement. But she was awarded damages of $55,000. The damages included lost wages and profit sharing, extra compensation for the tax effect of a lump-sum payment, reimbursement of some expenses, and $25,000 for injury to “dignity, feelings, and self-respect.” Also, the tribunal noted that, if she had provided expert evidence about her employability and earnings potential, she could have been awarded an amount for future wage loss as well.
The tribunal’s decision was based on several key findings:
- While the doctor had said she couldn’t work in a restaurant, he had never been provided with job descriptions or summaries of job duties for the different jobs in the restaurant.
- McDonald’s relied on its disability insurance provider’s assessment, but the insurer had never been fully informed of the jobs at McDonald’s.
- There was no true functional assessment of Ms. Datt’s capacity to meet job requirements.
- The doctor said that Ms. Datt couldn’t tolerate “frequent” hand-washing and that she was to have “minimal detergent and water contact,” but McDonald’s didn’t inquire about how often she could wash her hands or what level of detergent and water contact was acceptable.
- There was no real attempt to see if any alternative work or modified duties were available for Ms. Datt and no direct contact by McDonald’s to discuss returning to work. For example, McDonald’s didn’t explore the possibility of finding appropriately fitted gloves (e.g., “salad preparation gloves”) that Ms. Datt may have been able to use without aggravating her condition.
- There was no evidence of:
- the relationship between food contamination and hand-washing;
- the risk to the public if Ms. Datt’s hand-washing was limited; and
- other employees being adversely affected by Ms. Datt’s limitations.
Lessons for employers
It can be argued that Canadian human rights tribunals are insensitive to the practicalities of operating a business and accommodating members of a workforce who may or may not have realistic expectations of how their unique situations might be handled.
Nonetheless, this case is a reminder that employers in Canada should follow a comprehensive process to review accommodation options for disabled employees. It also provides useful guidance on the standards of accommodation expected. The tribunal made several statements in this regard:
- An employer must be “innovative, yet practical, in considering how to accommodate a disabled employee.”
- “An employer must patiently and carefully assess a disabled employee’s condition and this can only occur if there are discussions with that employee.”
- An employer must consider what jobs are available or could be modified or differently organized.
- An employer has an obligation to consider the bundling of duties, which might result in a “new” position being created.
- “Ms. Datt was not entitled to a perfect solution, but she was entitled to a fulsome consideration of her restrictions and how those restrictions intersected with the hand-washing policies and the jobs that were available.”
The Tribunal noted that employers should be proactive and consult with the injured employee. The tribunal stated its displeasure with McDonald’s because of its “lack of consultation” with Ms. Datt as follows:
I do not accept that [McDonald’s] was open to considering what Ms. Datt had to say, her suggestions for a possible change in her duties or whether there were any other jobs available that she could perform … For example, it did not consider if Ms. Datt could perform some of the duties of a swing manager, work in the drive thru and then perhaps act as hostess. Taking these steps would not have caused it undue hardship.
Some suggestions
Here are suggestions for employers dealing with an employee who has limitations as a result of a disability:
- Rely on doctors only to the extent of their expertise and knowledge. They shouldn’t make assessments of the jobs, job duties, or what should be done to accommodate but should only provide objective evidence of the employee’s limitations.
- Clarify all ambiguous or contradictory information from third-party advisers.
- Maintain a complete inventory of jobs and job duties, and document the process of reviewing all the possible ways the work, facilities, or processes might be changed to accommodate the employee.
- Identify all problems with possible accommodations, and gather the evidence to assess whether the problems amount to “undue hardship.”
- Maintain regular and direct contact with the employee during your accommodation discussions, rather than leaving that to insurers and other third parties.
- Do a final review, with counsel, of the information and the process.
God, when will this madness end?
Oh, Yuck!
Well, I guess I’m not eating anywhere that hires disabled people.
Remind not to visit British Columbia ever again, or if I do to not eat in any restaurants.
“Ms. Datt was not entitled to a perfect solution, but she was entitled to a fulsome consideration of her restrictions and how those restrictions intersected with the hand-washing policies and the jobs that were available.”
Fulsome? Whoever wrote that sentence clearly has no idea what they’re talking about. Look up the meaning of the word.
That’s disgusting, legally, morally, and sanitary-wise. Remind me never to visit Canada.
I’m guessing affirmative action played a part in the hiring program.
No evidence??? Hell people take down all those wash your hands signs the BCHRC says it’s all bunk.
The person who wrote this probably believes in woman made Global Warming.
Here is a better idea. Avoid hiring the disabled altogether.
Well, I’m never eating in Canada, that’s for sure.
Franz Kafka, your life is calling.
The doctor “had never been provided with job descriptions…”
Well, give him one. What evidence is there that he would have made a different assessment?
“…the insurer had never been fully informed of the jobs at McDonald’s.”
What evidence is there that if the insurer had been informed, they would have made a different assessment?
“There was no true functional assessment of Ms. Datt’s capacity to meet job requirements.”
What evidence is there this would have changed anything?
Etc. for the other rulings.
It sounds like the sixth graders are in charge.
If you are not wanted somewhere, why hang around?
Employees have some responsibility to be productive for the employers.
Unbelievable fascists. My respect for Canada and Canadian individuals has bottomed completely… it’s the responsibility of individual citizens to ensure they aren’t controlled by tyranny, which ironically is the same criticism levelled at US citizens in light of Bush being in power for two terms. We’ve been held accountable in the court of public opinion for the actions of our leaders. Fair enough, but you don’t get to play it both ways. Shame on the lot of you for allowing this kind of travesty to persist longer than the time it would take to laugh it off the stage. Alas, apparently enough Canadians are either cowed into submission by this “Human Rights” Tribunal and the insane thinking associated with it or they actually believe the same values. Either way, it’s one more name I can effortlessly scratch off an ever shrinking list of repectable states. Cowards.
One of the oddest things about postmodern ideologues is their real belief that controlling the narrative really does mean controlling reality. There are many bizarre things in this decision, but the most bizarre is the finding that there is no relationship between handwashing and food contamination. Good God. The Canadians have wiped away 50 years of microbiology and medical science in the name of political correctness. Perhaps they believe that, like free speech, the germ theory is an American concept that they have no obligation to defend.
I have previously been exposed to Hepatitis A by a restaurant employee who did not wash his hands. It has left me with chronic liver damage.
What do you suggest for people traveling to Canada? Should we bring all our own food? Another Hepatitis of Hep A will, in all probability, kill me. If it does, should my heirs make a claim against the employee, the employer, or the Human Rights commission?
I would also like to ask if the right to dirty hands extends to medical professionals in Canada.
Thank you.
What a pack of idiots your “tribunal” is. Will the tribunal hold McDonald’s harmless when they are sued by a customer sickened by food contaminated by an employee that was allowed to not wash their hands before handling food? Of course not! I’ve made a note to pack my own lunches while travelling in Canada in the future.
The lawyers will destroy us all, bit by bit, with rigamorole like this. McDonald’s knows what jobs are available. They have shifts and job duties tightly organized so as to maintain maximum efficiency. People in a fast-food restaurant have to handle food.
This case should have gone though a labour commission or tribunal, where they know what the heck they are talking about. The HR tribunals and commissions of Canada are the laughing stock of the world.
Well, not everyone’s laughing… Canadians certainly aren’t. They’re too busy being outraged.
Wow. Know what I would do if I were in charge of hiring for a company? Think twice before considering a resume by a disabled person. John Stossel wrote a column noting that employment rates in the US of disabled people dropped after the disablilities act. We should scrap this crap and give bonuses to companies that hire people with disablities. But that wouldn’t empower bureaucrats.
Chagrined Canadian
Great advice. And a far more balanced review of the facts than I’ve seen elsewhere.
What it boiled down to is if McDonald’s had simply spent more time talking to the 23-year employee and tried to accommodate her, they may have been able to accommodate her, or maybe not. But they would have been that much closer to fulfilling their duty to make the attempt.
The Tribunal Member making the decision was less than impressed by McDonald’s assertion that the insurance provider was somehow responsible for accommodation efforts, when no one from the insurance provider testified to that effect, no agreement between McDonald’s and the insurance provider to that effect was produced, and the correspondence between McDonald’s and the insurer didn’t establish this responsibility on behalf of the insurer.
Had the McDonald’s managers (store level and especially higher) showed some proactivity worthy of the title “manager”, a little courage by talking to the woman and seeing what, if anything, could be worked out, they would have served their company better.
I started out believing the case was ridiculous until I actually read the decision. Ruefully I admit I agree with the decision and it was dumb of McDonald’s to let it get to this point.
The conclusion that there was no evidence of a link between food contamination and handwashing might have been accepted in the 18th century, but only abysmal ignorance could possibly have led to such a finding now. After countless cases of food poisoning caused by faecal contamination by hand-wash phobics, it must be a mere perversity.
“There was no evidence of: the relationship between food contamination and hand-washing…”
This quote was picked up by National Review Online, and is making the rounds. It exposes the Court to ridicule, and rightly so; this is a serious mistake. The link between handwashing and food contamination is so well-established that proof should not be necessary.
Wow. Glad I know this and will always pack a lunch when visiting Canada.
“…no relationship between food contamination and hand washing.” Have you people lost your freakin’ minds?
First, McDonalds didn’t clarify exactly what form of food they serve, as it might matter. They didn’t specify the size of the place of employment, or the general weather patterns outside; they didn’t go over the materials used to make the floor, or the rest of the building.
They didn’t clarify to the woman’s doctor, every possible event that might occur during her daily job; including rare but possible events.
Also, not mentioned. They didn’t spring for voodoo, faith healing, or holistic care. They didn’t attempt to purchase magic in order to alleviate the situation. They didn’t explain why washing your hands with water would damage the skin (the abrasive property of soap and water). And they didn’t clarify why washing hands was necessary.
Yes, I consider the claim that washing hands isn’t linked to prevention and spreading of germs to be on par with relying on voodoo, holistic medicine, or faith healing. Apparently Canada hasn’t progressed to the Scientific realization that many illnesses are caused by viruses and bacteria. Tiny microscopic organisms that can be carried on a person’s hands.
Hopefully I’m never sick in Canada. The Witch Doctor shaking his rattle and burning incense to drive out the air demons is only moderately annoying, but leeching blood to remove the bad humours can be somewhat less than effective for most illnesses.
But I do now see how Canada can afford “free health care”. If your science hasn’t progressed to the ideas of viruses and bacteria… how expensive is it to raise and breed leeches?
What all you legal geniuses who criticize the decision fail to understand, perhaps because it wasnt drawn in crayon, is that the Tribunal DID NOT state that there was no evidence of contamination from not washing one’s hands, it DID state the no evidence was provided of such a relationship BY MCDONALDS. From the decision it looks like McDonalds was passing this off to the insurance provider without exercising due diligence to either accomodate the employee, who by the way was NOT hired as a disabled person but rather BECAME DISABLED FROM THE JOB, nor did they appear to provide enough documentary evidence to cover their butts when no accomdation was possible. So in this case the courts got it right. Just like they did with the old lady and the coffee.
OK, so McDs was insensitive to this employee’s needs and maybe should have spent more time trying to accommodate her. So, to make that lesson stick the court awards money that will be coughed up by the rest of the insurance company’s customers and divvied up between the lawyer and the now-unemployed dirty hand…yeah, that works…
I wash my hands of this whole mess.
A single reference to any of many articles would have disposed of the hand washing issue. But nobody bothered. Finding her a job, either in the restaurant or in corporate headquarters, that did not require frequent hand washing would not have been an insurmountable task. But nobody bothered. It is too bad that McDonalds was not prepared to be a good corporate citizen and look after its own employee. It is too bad that there has to be a Human Rights Commission to look after the employee.
I second what Ben has to say and Jim Banner.
Now I am going to sit quietly in my polite, Canadian, way and try not to correct ‘the Yanks’ who state that ‘the Canadians’ go about their lives in a constant state of group-think because I recognize how predjudicial, stereotypical and xenophobic I would look.
For the record, many Canadians are bringing a lot of pressure to their elected officials to curb the powers that the Commissions and Tribunals have gained over the past decade. At least we haven’t gotten to the point that the U.N has and allowed a special interest group to ‘outlaw’ any criticism or expressions that might be construed as criticism towards them: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/596661/the-club-of-tyranny.thtml.
If y’all want to get upset about something, get upset about that.
P.S. Why isn’t there a link to official documentation in this ‘article’? Am I supposed to believe just because it’s on this blogsite it’s true? In fact, the only webpages that has information on this ruling are linked back to this blog as the source.
I smell a rat.
Here’s the decision from the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. Sorry we didn’t include a link in the article originally. We’ll get that fixed.
Link to decision
Hold on a minute. The crux of the issue is not the rather obvious and moronic statement by one of the commissioners that there was no finding of a relationship between food contamination and hand washing; which in and of itself is amazing, the real issue is the way that this commission has the power in Canada to impose its opinion on corporations and individuals at all.
No where in this article is it exposed that the CHRT is actually not composed of adjudicators who must have legal training, in fact members can be selected from any group, (including special interest groups) based solely on their own interest in the subject matter. In other words the CHRT Chair can select pretty much anyone they wish to serve on their pet Star Chamber. Additionally, normal, Canadian legal procedures meant to protect *defendant’s rights* do not have to be followed, including rules of evidence, presumption of innocence and bias of witnesses or representation. In all cases, the defendant must cover their legal expenses, which seems reasonable only until you realize that complainants do not have to pay expenses… these are paid by Canadian taxpayers. (!)
Allegations have already been raised that some individuals and groups have used the CHRC/CHRT channel spuriously to not only attack those whose opinions they dislike, but also to actually make some money… remember it costs a complainant nothing throughout the whole process. Whether this is true seems entirely irrelevant however, when placed next to the procedural divergence from normal, legal process. It’s a complete and utter sham as an entity and provides a massive legal loophole which is almost without exception used by far left entities and individuals to prosecute their agendas.
As for the responsibility for MacDonald’s to either find her another job or to actually *create* another for her; we read that she had been an employee since 1981. Although it’s not stated anywhere in the article, it seems pretty obvious that if she had been an employee this long and was still in a position to need to wash her hands frequently, isn’t it a rather straightforward inference that she wasn’t exactly management material? Why they would have to go further out of their way for an employee for whom they had already tolerated three separate periods of disability, is beyond me and most of the respondants to this article. It seems to me that they had already followed a path of more than adequate and in fact very generous due diligence.
Ben:
The Tribunal’s remarks *do* state that their own findings did not find a relationship between food contamination and hand-washing. As in:
“The tribunal’s decision was based on several key findings:…
There was no evidence of:
the relationship between food contamination and hand-washing;”
Read the article before insulting those among us who actually understood it in the first place. Genius.
Likewise stating that she became ill as a result of working at MacDonalds is pure inference. It’s not stated at any point in this article that this was the case. What’s stated is that she became ill over the period of time while she was working there… which was over a 20 year period. If you don’t develop some kind of affliction, illness or other change in your body or body chemistry over a 20 year span in your life, then you’re very lucky, as most people do. Unless of course, you haven’t yet experienced a 20 year period which you can use to measure against…
you know, i recall a number of cases in the recent past where people eating at canadian restaurants acquired a hepatitis infection.
this ruling explains why. essentially, the public safety takes a back seat when it comes to the rights of an individual to work where they want to work.
this is in keeping with the recent UK ruling that allows muslim nurses to limit their sanitary practices so that they don’t have to roll up their sleeves.
it seems there is a race on in the western world to see who can make the most nonsensical rulings the quickest.
You know, I recall a number of cases in the recent past where people eating at an American/UK/Mexican/Thai/Chinese/Egyptian restaurants acquired a hepatitis infection, but there are too many for me to list ANY support sources or post links on this page. Not that one would be required, apparently anecdote suffices on these types of sites.
If you take the time to read the case documents, you will find that she was not working while she had difficulty with her hands, and was observing all of the hand-washing rules during those short periods of time when she did try to go back to work, which then made her condition flare up making her go on disability again. Therefore she never put the public at risk.
She was granted a settlement- she did not get her job back or go to work in any restaurant following her departure from McDonalds.
Pull your heads out, already.
Everyone who’s getting up in arms about up the claim that “There was no evidence of: the relationship between food contamination and hand-washing”, please note that such a statement DOES NOT appear in the ruling. Instead it is a deeply misleading summary of paragraph 240 of the ruling, which says, in part (*emphasis* and [clarifications] mine):
Further, there was no evidence about the relationship between food contamination and hand-washing *frequency*. For example, there was no evidence to address whether the goal *could have been met with hourly or half-hourly hand-washing* or some other timed hand-washing frequency that Ms. Datt might have been able to meet. There was no evidence of the actual risk to the public if Ms. Datt, the only employee who had some form of hand-washing restriction, was provided with modified duties [i.e. not handling food] or a modified way of working [e.g. using disposable gloves, using a less irritating hand soap,…].
“Ben” said:
What all you legal geniuses who criticize the decision fail to understand, perhaps because it wasnt drawn in crayon, is that the Tribunal DID NOT state that there was no evidence of contamination from not washing one’s hands, it DID state the no evidence was provided of such a relationship BY MCDONALDS.
Why should McDonalds have to prove this? It’s common knowledge. My parents taught me about it before I went to kindergarten. Haven’t yours?
Well, this article has generated as much controversy as a good old hockey fight! The gloves are off! Literally and figuratively. Folks are taking roundhouse punches without even looking. It’s sure entertaining. But it may not advance the game.
I am the editor in chief of Northern Exposure. So allow me a few comments.
While I am sympathetic with those who say these Canadian human rights tribunals sometimes act like “postmodern ideologues,” don’t cancel your tickets to British Columbia just yet. If you read the decision, you will see that McDonald’s was the author of its own misfortune here. It provided a textbook example of how NOT to handle a disability accommodation case.
Unfortunately, the zealous human rights tribunal got a little carried away in its rather verbose decision, in describing why McDonald’s was at fault. Some of its reasons can be easily taken out of context. So let’s look at the fundamentals.
In Canada, as in the USA, there is a duty to accommodate the disabled. A Canadian employer must do so unless it would create undue hardship. The bottom line of the decision was that McDonald’s had not fulfilled this obligation. It had hardly made any effort, in fact, to first of all examine whether the employee could be accommodated, and secondly to try to accommodate her in the workplace.
The tribunal said at para. 249-250 of its decision: “McDonald’s did not argue that it did not have the financial, or other resources, to accommodate Ms. Datt. Given the size of McDonald’s, and the resources available to it, I am at a loss to understand why McDonald’s did not take more steps to try and accommodate Ms. Datt, a 23-year committed employee. … It may be that, at the end of the day, Ms. Datt could not have been accommodated at McDonald’s because she simply could not meet its hand-washing policies doing any job or combination of jobs, but based on the evidence before me, I find that McDonald’s failed to take all the necessary steps to make this final determination.”
The tribunal also recognized the importance of handwashing in the food industry and McDonald’s right and obligation to enforce such rules. It said: “The requirement is that hands be washed as often as necessary to prevent the contamination of food. As I said earlier, I accept that the goal of preventing the contamination of food is why McDonald’s established its hand-washing policy. This goal cannot be understated and it accords with common sense in the handling and preparation of food. However, there were duties that Ms. Datt could have performed that did not require her to handle food. For example, there was the position of Swing Manager that had supervisory duties. …”
Given those factual conclusions, it’s pretty hard to argue that the tribunal was “out to lunch” (at McDonald’s or elsewhere) in coming to this decision.
In my opinion, where the tribunal can more properly be criticized is the lengths to which it expects employers to go in efforts to accommodate employees. The threshold for when accommodation constitutes “undue hardship” is often unreasonably high. As my colleagues Earl Phillips and Dan Pugen point out in the article, it can be argued that Canadian human rights tribunals “… are insensitive to the practicalities of operating a business and accommodating members of a workforce who may or may not have realistic expectations of how their unique situations might be handled.”
If McDonald’s had been a little more proactive in this case — had it done some of the things the authors recommend, and many employers do — it would have been better able to argue that it had met the threshold. It didn’t and it couldn’t.
So while we may have our share of ideologues north of the 49th, they’re not totally out of control. And don’t worry, the restaurants really are good! And clean!
In a word this is asinine.
A job is an exchange of labor for wages. If the worker is unable to perform the job, there is no moral basis to compel the employer to pay them.
-jcr
“Elethiomel Says:
April 15th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Unbelievable fascists. My respect for Canada and Canadian individuals has bottomed completely… it’s the responsibility of individual citizens to ensure they aren’t controlled by tyranny, which ironically is the same criticism levelled at US citizens in light of Bush being in power for two terms. We’ve been held accountable in the court of public opinion for the actions of our leaders. Fair enough, but you don’t get to play it both ways. Shame on the lot of you for allowing this kind of travesty to persist longer than the time it would take to laugh it off the stage. Alas, apparently enough Canadians are either cowed into submission by this “Human Rights” Tribunal and the insane thinking associated with it or they actually believe the same values. Either way, it’s one more name I can effortlessly scratch off an ever shrinking list of repectable states. Cowards.”
That is one of the most ridiculous, stupid, and pointless posts I have seen in a long time. Maybe you should actually read the article, CAREFULLY. It is McDonald’s responsibility to prove facts, and they failed to do so. They displayed incompetance when presenting their case, by failing to show basic evidence.
I think the person who wrote this entry, and the people who made that stupid ruling, should be forced to eat at this McDonald’s. What this doesn’t report is that this McDonald’s can no longer tell its employees to wash their hands if they don’t want to.
when people start getting sick, blame the human rights tribunal
Brian P. Smeek:
Your clarification on the summary statement being taken out of context is a case of ‘too little, too late’. This posting has been picked up by hundreds of blogs that are spreading that mis-information around globally. You can bet that practically no one reading these blogs bothered to read the origninal ruling (a link to which you did not provide until someone i.e. me pointed it out), and are gleefully spreading around this incorrect information as an excuse to bash everything Canadian. Not having the link and not providing context to that statement from the start was a shamefully careless lapse in judgement.
It deeply upsets me that these kinds of mistakes re-affirm predjudicial and divisive attitudes, as we have seen in a nutshell on this site. I sincerely hope that this type of thing doesn’t happen again on this blog- which I think is otherwise very useful and informative.
If she couldn’t be a cashier, and couldn’t work with food, there are simply no jobs available. I guess McDonald’s thought this was obvious as much as it is to all of us who worked in fast food during school.
If they didn’t let her try to become a cashier that would be grounds, but if they did and she just couldn’t do the job, there is simply nothing else to do. There are no cleaning positions you can do for hours at a time, there’s just not enough work.
Really it sounds like McDonald’s didn’t even try to defend it. OTOH, just the sheer obviousness of “it’s fast food, every job entails working with food” should have won.
To my Canadian friends, may I ask this question?
Why not just do away with these Human Rights Commissions? Are these commisssions a creature of the Parliament? I confess I don’t know all that much about the creation of these commissions. But, the Courts seem to have ceded some of their decision-making powers to these commissions. Perhaps that is what was intended, but maybe these commissions have overstepped the boundaries.
The commissions have overstepped the boundaries- for sure. Really this should have been brought before the Labour Rights Board or small claims court. These Human Rights Commissions are very controversial in our own country right now as it is obvious that special interest groups are using them to to promote their agendas, and the Commissions have become less and less objective as time has worn on.
To do away with the Commissions would be possible by putting a massive amount of pressure on our Provincial Ministers of Justice. The commissions and tribunals do present annual reports to these PMs. Unfortunately it has become a partisan issue, and we all know what happens when that’s the case- endless bickering and no action.
Did they clarify that McDonalds didn’t state in its brief that employees need to wear clothes and shoes? Or that employees would have to appear at the place of employment and do something useful in order to get paid?
Or one of a thousand things that everyone ****ing knows, so you’d think it’d be stupid for McDonalds to have explicitly mentioned it?
Well, apparently, with Canadian bureaucracy, it is now required to clearly and explicitly spell out everything that anyone might not know; and everything that everyone knows, and everything that anyone might think they know, but could use some clarification on…
That’s going to be a really long filing next time. If I were working for McDonalds, I’d get started in it now. And rent a truck to carry it to the Courthouse.
This is insane. The “tribunal” is staffed by the insane Left from a hospital for Hepatitis. Bug-nuts crazy and picking at scabs insane. Flyswatting and dumpy diaper insane.
It’s not all of Canada, Canada is a great place it’s just that crazy province British Columbia I believe they should just fire her or pay a sum of like $1,000 just to fix her because Mcdonalds earns over half a trillion dollars a year and a mear $1,000 ain’t going to do anything so they are just retarded for trying to make a right about this
British Columbia, the most pathetic place on earth. I love that there isn’t a relationship between food contamination and not washing your hands, Hmm…
And as for the BC Human Rights tribunal run by idiots who should be heavily assaulted and broken it’s not the first time dumb ruling from the lowest group of smarter idiots that have over-reached it’s borders. There is a case of a golf club in Vancouver that didn’t let two lesbians into a male only lounge. At the end the lesbians won but got shafted by a judge who said these idiots at the BCHRT were over-stepping their boundaries as the lounge is private property and it’s up to the owner to let who they want into their place. Human rights protection is a great thing but not when idiots are judging and other idiots exploit it.
As a resident of british columbia, I am somewhat disheartened that people believe this about all british columbians. We aren’t all this stupid to not know what working in a fast food joint consists of, nor are we all this stupid to think not washing hands before preparing food is ok. Granted this woman has a disability, and was fired because if it, what if she hadn’t a disability or it was someone else who neglected or refused to wash their hands. Why is it (I am disabled myself) that some people feel it warrants extra special treatment in comparison to those who don’t have the disabilities. She couldn’t wash her hands, something needed in a fast food joint to comply with safety hazards. She can’t do it, she can’t do the job, plain and simple.
No we aren’t all like this, and you will find people like this all over the world, not just here in BC.