Difference between revisions of "BC Human Rights Code (6:III)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
Finally, section 43, often referred to as the “retaliation” section, prohibits discrimination against a person because that person complains, has been named, gives evidence, or otherwise assists in a complaint or related proceeding under the HRC, or because they might in future complain, be named, give evidence, or otherwise assist in a complaint or related proceeding. Please refer to ''[https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/18/00/2018BCCA0078.htm Gichuru v Pallai]'', 2018 BCCA 78 at paras 50—58, which provides the test for proving retaliation under section 43. | Finally, section 43, often referred to as the “retaliation” section, prohibits discrimination against a person because that person complains, has been named, gives evidence, or otherwise assists in a complaint or related proceeding under the HRC, or because they might in future complain, be named, give evidence, or otherwise assist in a complaint or related proceeding. Please refer to ''[https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/18/00/2018BCCA0078.htm Gichuru v Pallai]'', 2018 BCCA 78 at paras 50—58, which provides the test for proving retaliation under section 43. | ||
=== 1. Discriminatory Publication === | === 1. Discriminatory Publication === | ||
| Line 316: | Line 315: | ||
Since persons are not covered by section 14, protection against denial of membership has been held to apply only against an implicated union, organization, or association, and not against an individual. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2005/2005bchrt53/2005bchrt53.html?resultIndex=1 Ratsoy v BC Teachers’ Federation]'', 2005 BCHRT 53 at para 23. This differs from other protections granted by the HRC, which, in appropriate circumstances, generally do allow an action to be brought against both an organization (e.g. an employer) and its individual members (e.g. a manager). | Since persons are not covered by section 14, protection against denial of membership has been held to apply only against an implicated union, organization, or association, and not against an individual. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2005/2005bchrt53/2005bchrt53.html?resultIndex=1 Ratsoy v BC Teachers’ Federation]'', 2005 BCHRT 53 at para 23. This differs from other protections granted by the HRC, which, in appropriate circumstances, generally do allow an action to be brought against both an organization (e.g. an employer) and its individual members (e.g. a manager). | ||
There are two limited ways in which unions can be held liable for discrimination. The first is by creating or participating in formulating a discriminatory workplace rule, and the second is by impeding an employer’s efforts to accommodate an employee (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt44/2018bchrt44.html?resultIndex=1 Chestacow v Mount St Marie Hospital of Marie Esther Society]'', [2018] BCHRT No 44 at para 32 [''Chestacow'']). In respect of the latter, a union may be required to waive seniority rights or other collective agreement obligations in order to facilitate the accommodation of an employee with a protected characteristic, such as a disability. | There are two limited ways in which unions can be held liable for discrimination. The first is by creating or participating in formulating a discriminatory workplace rule, and the second is by impeding an employer’s efforts to accommodate an employee (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt44/2018bchrt44.html?resultIndex=1 Chestacow v Mount St Marie Hospital of Marie Esther Society]'', [2018] BCHRT No 44 at para 32 [''Chestacow'']). In respect of the latter, a union may be required to waive seniority rights or other collective agreement obligations in order to facilitate the accommodation of an employee with a protected characteristic, such as a disability. | ||
== C. Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination == | == C. Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination == | ||