Moore v. Canada Post Corporation

Moore v. Canada Post Corporation

Tribunal held that reclassification and permanent reassignment to Manual/PO4 did not constitute discrimination because the complainant was incapable of PO5 duties when reclassified and thereafter; however, limiting the bidding rights of PPD employees constituted a discriminatory practice because CPC failed to conduct individualized assessments of ability to work in alternative Manual work centers; notwithstanding that finding, complainant failed to prove he would have obtained a preferred shift absent the restriction, so no compensation was awarded; CUPW was not liable as it did not make the final accommodation decision.

Citation
2007 CHRT 31
Parties
Complainant: B. Rick Moore; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent (employer): Canada Post Corporation; Respondent (union): Canadian Union of Postal Workers
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (disability) / Tribunal Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Partial finding: discrimination found as to bidding restriction but no compensatory remedy awarded; reassignment/reclassification not discriminatory; CUPW not liable.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Duty to Accommodate, Reassignment and Reclassification, Shift Bidding Restrictions, Remedy (compensation), Prima Facie Case
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Disability Discrimination Duty to Accommodate Reassignment and Reclassification Shift Bidding Restrictions Remedy (compensation) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. Rick Moore

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canada Post Corporation

Respondent (employer)

Canadian Union of Postal Workers

Respondent (union)

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (disability) / Tribunal Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permanent reassignment to Manual and reclassification from PO5 to PO4 constituted discrimination under s.7(a) or s.7(b) of the CHRA
  2. 2 Whether limiting PPD employees' shift bid choices constituted discrimination under s.7(b) and whether CPC established a bona fide justification/undue hardship under s.15(2)
  3. 3 Whether CUPW is liable for the accommodation/reassignment decision

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal held that reclassification and permanent reassignment to Manual/PO4 did not constitute discrimination because the complainant was incapable of PO5 duties when reclassified and thereafter; however, limiting the bidding rights of PPD employees constituted a discriminatory practice because CPC failed to conduct individualized assessments of ability to work in alternative Manual work centers; notwithstanding that finding, complainant failed to prove he would have obtained a preferred shift absent the restriction, so no compensation was awarded; CUPW was not liable as it did not make the final accommodation decision.

Court Disposition

Partial finding: discrimination found as to bidding restriction but no compensatory remedy awarded; reassignment/reclassification not discriminatory; CUPW not liable.

Orders

  • Canada Post Corporation engaged in a discriminatory practice by restricting the bidding rights of PPD employees (as applied to the complainant)
  • No monetary compensation awarded to complainant