A. What constitutes “undue hardship”?
B. According to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, "undue hardship describes the limit, beyond which employers and service providers are not expected to accommodate". Stephen Hammond described the Supreme Court’s criteria for undue hardship in his book, “Managing human rights at work”. He says, although not exhaustive, “in determining undue hardship, the Court has said employers should consider the following:
· Financial cost
· Disruption of a collective agreement
· Problems of morale of other employees
· Interchangeability of workforce and facilities
· Size of the employer’s operation
· Safety and who bears the risk”
In other words minor interference will not be sufficient. Instead, to be considered an undue hardship the interferences with the rights of other employees must be substantial.
A. How do supervisors get employees to accept the idea of accommodating?
B. Stephen provides two great suggestions. One, “try to get people to understand accommodating someone is not the same as allowing him or her to slack off”. Rather, accommodating “allows the individual to honor a higher set of principles or deal with a physical or mental obstacle”. Second, Stephen suggests letting the other employees know that they will be accommodated if needed. By allowing the employees to feel they too can be accommodated, the supervisor is showing that accommodation is a principle of equality.
Reference
Hammond, S. (2004). Managing human rights at work. Harrassment Solutions Inc. Inc.
Canadian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved June 5, 2008 from http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/preventing_discrimination/page3-en.asp
