Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud

Last updated
Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing:
Judgment:
Citations [1992] 2 SCR 970
Docket No. 21682
Court membership
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons bySopinka J

Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud, [1992] 2 SCR 970 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court found that an employer was under a duty to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees to the point of undue hardship.

Contents

Background

Larry Renaud was a unionized custodian in the Central Okanagan School District and a practicing Seventh-day Adventist. Under a collective agreement, Renaud was required to work on Friday evening. However, Renaud's faith forbade him from working sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. He proposed several forms of accommodations in which he would work Sunday to Thursday as a religious exception to the collective agreement. The school board rejected the alternatives and eventually terminated his employment.

Renaud brought a complaint on the grounds the school board violated section 8 of the British Columbia Human Rights Act for discrimination based on religion. The issues put to the Supreme Court was whether Renaud had been indirectly discriminated against and whether the school was under any duty to accommodate him.

Decision

Justice Sopkina, writing for a unanimous Court, held that there had been discrimination against Renaud. Sopinka found that an employer was under a duty to accommodate employees religious beliefs short of undue hardship, even despite any collective agreement or private contract.

See also

Related Research Articles

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional, insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.

United States labor law The rights of working people in the USA to fair wages, limits on working time, voice at work, equal treatment, and job security.

United States labor law sets the rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers in the United States. Labor law's basic aim is to remedy the "inequality of bargaining power" between employees and employers, especially employers "organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association". Over the 20th century, federal law created minimum social and economic rights, and encouraged state laws to go beyond the minimum to favor employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires a federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 but higher in 28 states, and discourages working weeks over 40 hours through time-and-a-half overtime pay. There is no federal law requiring paid holidays or paid family leave, and limited state laws. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 creates a limited right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in larger employers. There is no automatic right to an occupational pension beyond federally guaranteed social security, but the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 requires standards of prudent management and good governance if employers agree to provide pensions, health plans or other benefits. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires employees have a safe system of work.

The duty of fair representation is incumbent upon U.S. labor unions that are the exclusive bargaining representative of workers in a particular group. It is the obligation to represent all employees fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. Originally recognized by the United States Supreme Court in a series of cases in the mid-1940s involving racial discrimination by railway workers' unions covered by the Railway Labor Act, the duty of fair representation also applies to workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act and, depending on the terms of the statute, to public sector workers covered by state and local laws regulating labor relations.

In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula is a workplace compromise arising from jurisprudence struck between organized labour and employers that guarantees employers industrial stability by requiring all workers affected by a collective agreement to pay dues to the union by mandatory deduction in exchange for the union agreement to "work now, grieve later." Historically, in some workplaces, some workers refused to pay dues to the union even after benefiting from wage and benefit improvements negotiated by the union representatives, resulting in friction and violence as they were seen as 'free-loaders;' at the same time, absence of a peaceful grievance settlement mechanism created industrial instability as union members often walked off the job. The compromise was designed to ensure that no employee will opt out of the union simply to avoid dues yet reap the benefits of collective bargaining, such as higher wages or health insurance. Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ivan Rand, the eponym of this law, introduced this formula in 1946 as an arbitration decision ending the Ford Strike of 1945 in Windsor, Ontario. The Canada Labour Code and the labour relations laws of a majority of provinces contain provisions requiring the Rand formula when certain conditions are met. In those provinces where the labour relations laws do not make the Rand formula mandatory, the automatic check-off of union dues may become part of the collective bargaining agreement if both parties agree. If there are religious objections to paying dues the dues may be donated to a mutually agreed upon charity.

Compulsory Check-Off

Union dues to be deducted

70. (1) Where a trade union that is the bargaining agent for employees in a bargaining unit so requests, there shall be included in the collective agreement between the trade union and the employer of the employees a provision requiring the employer to deduct from the wages of each employee in the unit affected by the collective agreement, whether or not the employee is a member of the union, the amount of the regular union dues and to remit the amount to the trade union forthwith.

Religious objections

(2) Where the Board is satisfied that an employee, because of their religious conviction or beliefs, objects to joining a trade union or to paying regular union dues to a trade union, the Board may order that the provision in a collective agreement requiring, as a condition of employment, membership in a trade union or requiring the payment of regular union dues to a trade union does not apply to that employee so long as an amount equal to the amount of the regular union dues is paid by the employee, either directly or by way of deduction from their wages, to a registered charity mutually agreed on by the employee and the trade union.

Designation by Board

(3) Where an employee and the trade union are unable to agree on a registered charity for the purposes of subsection (2), the Board may designate any such charity as the charity to which payment should be made.

The Free Exercise Clause accompanies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

<i>British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government Service Employees Union</i>

British Columbia v British Columbia Government Service Employees' Union [1999] 3 SCR 3, 1999 SCC 48 – called Meiorin for short – is a Supreme Court of Canada case that created a unified test to determine if a violation of human rights legislation can be justified as a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR).

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA) is a proposed amendment to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which would limit employers' discretion to decline to accommodate the religious practices of their employees or prospective employees in the United States.

Freedom of religion in Canada

Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

Pregnancy Discrimination Act 1978 US federal law

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978 is a United States federal statute. It amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to "prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy."

<i>Canada (AG) v Mossop</i>

Canada (AG) v Mossop, [1993] 1 SCR 554 was the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to consider equality rights for gays. The case is also significant as one of Justice L'Heureux-Dube's most famous dissents where she proposes an evolving model of the "family".

<i>Central Alberta Dairy Pool v Alberta (Human Rights Commission)</i>

Central Alberta Dairy Pool v Alberta , [1990] 2 SCR 489, is a leading human rights law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court expanded on the concept of accommodation up to undue hardship first established in Ontario v Simpsons-Sears Ltd, [1985] 2 SCR 536 and provided a set of factors to consider when evaluating undue hardship.

School District 23 Central Okanagan is a school district in the Okanagan valley of British Columbia. It includes the cities of Kelowna, and West Kelowna, and the District Municipalities of Lake Country, and Peachland, and is the 5th largest district in BC. The boundaries of the school district are identical to those of the Regional District of Central Okanagan.

<i>Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Simpsons-Sears Ltd</i>

Ontario v Simpsons-Sears Ltd, [1985] 2 SCR 536 is a leading decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which first acknowledged the existence of indirect discrimination through conduct that creates prejudicial effect.

An undue hardship is special or specified circumstances that partially or fully exempt a person or organization from performance of a legal obligation so as to avoid an unreasonable or disproportionate burden or obstacle.

In employment law, a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) (US) or bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) (Canada) or genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) (UK) is a quality or an attribute that employers are allowed to consider when making decisions on the hiring and retention of employees—a quality that when considered in other contexts would constitute discrimination and thus be in violation of civil rights employment law. Such qualifications must be listed in the employment offering.

Employment Relations Act 2000

The New Zealand Employment Relations Act 2000 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand. It was substantially amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2001 and by the ERAA 2004.

Portland Adventist Academy Private, day, college-prep school in Portland, Oregon, United States

Portland Adventist Academy (PAA) is a private high school located in Portland, Oregon, United States operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is a part of the Seventh-day Adventist education system, the world's second largest Christian school system. The school was founded in 1910, and was previously known as Portland Union Academy, serving grades K-12. The name changed when the elementary section became its own school, Portland Adventist Elementary School in 1975. During the process, the high school section was renamed Portland Adventist Academy.

South African labour law regulates the relationship between employers, employees and trade unions in the Republic of South Africa.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to Privately held corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. ___ (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case that the Court evaluated the requirements for bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that to bring such a claim, a pregnant employee must show that their employer refused to provide accommodations and that the employer later provided accommodations to other employees with similar restrictions. The Court then remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the employer engaged in discrimination under this new test.