Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Home Accommodation B.C. human rights tribunal allows complaint over breach of accommodation agreement involving bakery worker at Safeway to proceed

B.C. human rights tribunal allows complaint over breach of accommodation agreement involving bakery worker at Safeway to proceed

by HR Law Canada

A former bakery helper at a Safeway grocery store has had a part of her discrimination complaint slated for a hearing by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

The complaint, filed in December 2019 by the worker — KN — alleges that the employer failed to adhere to an accommodation agreement related to her physical disability, resulting in employment-related adverse impacts.

The crux of KN’s complaint centers around her diagnosis of sciatica in May 2014 and the resulting restrictions against working certain shifts, particularly the “donut shift.” Despite these restrictions, she claims that she was asked to work this shift, leading to injury and a denied WorkSafeBC claim.

Following a medical leave and reduced schedule, she returned to regular hours in November 2015. In 2016, an Accommodation Agreement was signed, outlining specific work limitations for her.

Fast forward to January 2019, and Sobeys (parent company of Safeway) announced the closure of several stores, including the one where KN worked. She was presented with options to either be placed in another store or resign.

KN alleges that after refusing to work the donut shift in April 2019, as per her medical restrictions, her hours were significantly reduced, and subsequent employment opportunities at other stores were revoked without explanation.

Sobeys, on its part, denies the discrimination claims. The company states that her refusals to work the donut shift were accepted without any negative consequences to her wages or work environment. They also assert that the termination of KN’s employment was a result of store closures, a process affecting multiple employees, and not linked to her disability or refusal to work specific shifts.

The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions, decided to proceed with a hearing for KN’s allegation regarding the failure to abide by the Accommodation Agreement. However, it dismissed the part of her complaint related to adverse impacts from the termination of her employment, citing a lack of reasonable prospect for success.

For more information, see Norvell v. Sobeys Capital Ltd., 2023 BCHRT 207 (CanLII)

You may also like