Work-family balance still at odds
Summer makes everything better. Personally, I just can’t be depressed about anything for too long and possibilities seem endless — ideas on how to drum up more work, how to be more efficient, how to begin the new school year with a renew attitude and more energy. Where most people make their new year’s resolutions in the new year … summer is the time for me. I usually plan around now and it all goes smoothly, my enthusiasm keeping me going. This year however there is stress as my kid is turning school-age and I still haven’t come up with a good plan on how to deal with him going to school (8 a.m. to 3 p.m.) and me working 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. With daycare, I had no worries as the place was opened 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. I’m currently looking into after-school programs because that’s my only option — we have no family here — and there seems to be a shortage of good programs around my neighbourhood. Still, I’m hopeful I’ll find something come September.
As accommodating as my employer has been, I still occasionally find it a struggle to make working full-time and being a parent a conflict-free combo. I feel guilty most of the time about my “special” status as a parent and about my employer making exceptions. But perhaps as shouldn’t as being a parent is not technically illegal, nor should it stop one from working.
This is perhaps a good time to bring up the Employers Must Accommodate Parents case where on January 31st, 2013 a Federal Court judge affirmed a 2010 ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that said that employers have a duty to accommodate ‘childcare obligations’ as a component of their duty to accommodate an employee’s ‘family status’.” The case was decided by the Honourable Mr. Justice Leonard Mandamin.
In his Kelly Santini LLP’s employment law blog, Santini talks about the case of Ms. Johnstone who worked for the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) as a customs agent at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, as did her husband. Ms. Johnstone asked for fixed shifts to accommodate her parenting duties and CBSA was able to accommodate her, provided that she was willing to work part-time hours and thus sacrifice her benefits, etc.
“The case was decided with reference to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 3 of that Act provides that: For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. In resolving that childcare obligations were included within the definition of ‘family status,’ which as Justice Mandamin noted is not a term defined in the Act, Justice Mandamin wrote that:
…it is difficult to have regard to family without giving thought to children in the family and the relationship between parents and children. The singular most important aspect of that relationship is the parents’ care for children. It seems to me that if Parliament intended to exclude parental childcare obligations, it would have chosen language that clearly said so.
In result, I conclude the Tribunal’s conclusion that family status includes childcare obligations is reasonable. It is within the scope of ordinary meaning of the words; it is in accord with decisions in related human rights and labour forums; it is in keeping with the jurisprudence; and it is consistent with the objects of the Act.”
By Jowita Bydlowska, poss.ca