Looking at Blindness

Andrew Lawson, May 2008

Human rights legislation demands that all Canadian employers “accommodate” the needs of workers with disabilities.
Do you have a system in place to meet this legal obligation? Let’s look at a real-life scenario:

You manage a call centre and supervise a team of 45 customer service workers. During a recent recruiting drive you interview a candidate who is legally blind. Perhaps a current employee is now legally blind as a result of an accident.

• What is your immediate response to this situation?
• Would a blind person be welcomed into your work environment and;
• Would you willingly make changes to help make this happen successfully?
• Does your organization have the funds to renovate?
• To install special equipment?

The law says you must accommodate the special needs of any worker who is protected by human rights legislation. One exception to this requirement is where an employer can prove that the necessary accommodations would be an undue hardship. In other words, the organization cannot afford to do it. Perhaps you don’t have the money or the worker’s situation creates an extreme safety hazard.

Do think your inexperience with disabled workers or your own lack of creativity may hamper your problem solving in a situation like this? Consider this—

A restaurant in Montreal, O Noir, employs blind people as food servers. You may well be asking, “how can a blind person serve food in a restaurant?” At O Noir blindness is a special ability. At O Noir customers eat in complete darkness. Who better to function effectively in a lightless environment than a blind person?

I am not suggesting you shut off the lights in your factory or office. I am suggesting that, before you jump to conclusions, have another look at your perspective on the abilities of prospective and current employees.

Accommodation of Workers under Human Rights Legislation

Written By: Andrew Lawson

A worker was fired when he failed to show up for work on Easter Monday after he requested the day off for religious reasons. The employer had denied his request because the workplace was very busy on Mondays. The relatively small employer claimed an undue hardship. The Supreme Court of Canada decided in favour of the worker and required the employer to allow the worker to be off work on Easter Monday in the future.

• The hardship imposed on the employer was not substantial

• There was no evidence the employee wanted to create a routine.

Accommodation does not need to be perfect. A delivery driver was assigned to a new route in order to accommodate his religious conviction to finish work prior to sunset on Friday afternoons. The employee became unhappy with the arrangement and claimed discrimination on religious grounds. The arbitrator assigned to the case decided that the employer did not violate the law:

• The transfer to different route was a reasonable accommodation
• The accommodation did not disturb the earnings of the worker.
• The accommodation did not interfere with business operations.
• Workers cannot expect perfect accommodations.

The Court, in contrast, upheld the decision of a large car manufacturer. Two workers requested every Friday evening off for religious reasons. The employer said it would be an undue hardship to accommodate the workers citing, safety concerns, the seniority rights of senior workers, and the competitive position of the company. The court agreed with the employer