55 Replies to “The BC Human Right To Foodborne Illness Tribunal Rules”

  1. My wife the dental hygienist will just throw out all the years of practice and learning, on the grounds that the BCHRC is out of their blessed minds.
    Sure, no gloves with blood, saliva, and regular bacteria. Nope no risk for infection or transmission of diseases, such as AIDS, hepatitis versions A throught F, etc….
    I have a better idea, lets get the BC Communicable Disease Center to shut down the BC HRC as a danger to public health!!!
    Oh and don’t wash your hands after going to the bathroom either!
    What a bunch of loons.
    Cheers
    Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
    Commander in Chief
    Frankenstein Battalion
    2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
    Knecht Rupprecht Division
    Hans Corps
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group “True North”

  2. I’d like to think that these kangaroo Kourts were abiding the generally accepted legal principle of the “reasonable man test” but these fools don’t employ any of those.

  4. Let us consider how the BCHRC would have handled the case of “Typhoid Mary”.
    How would they handle:
    A grape stomper with Hep A.
    A lower-limb amputee who wants to be a foot model.
    A woman who wants to be a sperm donor.

  6. These types of decisions have the potential to a big problem for employers and fellow employees. Of course initially it was a Noble Goal; to help out people out that were being unfairly targeted by their employers because of health problems. The problem is that it is becoming almost impossible for employers to remove anyone who is unsuitable. Unscrupulous employees are taking advantage of this. All a problem employee has to do is find a doctor that will sign off on a disability condition. Then the business is compelled to find modified duties or an alternate job within the organization.
    It is a great way to get out of labor or low status jobs and into a nice clean office job without having either merit or ability. Unfortunately the business suffers because it becomes paper clip counter heavy but front line worker short. Then it has to either overwork the remaining staff to cover for the “disabled” or suck up the cost and add an additional worker to the payroll.

  7. I think the lines that are most striking are, dont rely on Doctors for their assessment.
    So an employer is looking for an expert assessment and even when the provide one the BCHRC overrides.
    Oh and they guide the complainant and future complainers about how they can maximize their damage claim.
    Sigh…….in this case though they are dealing with their alleged core competency, denial of employment….but why wasnt this dealt with through the BC labour relations or through a dismassal tribunal….oh thats right the plaintiff would have had to pay their legal costs on their own.
    Incent behaviour A and it is no surprise when you see behaviour A.

  8. McDonald’s is just another big American company that purveys unhealthy products. Nobody feels sorry for them if they have to cough up some money to an abused employee. In fact, it’s something to applaud. Uh, oh. I forgot. McDonald’s restaurants are a franchise, so the franchisee has to eat it. I hope he washed his hands.

  9. I suggest that we throw a barbacue for the BC HRC. The menu will be chicken and potato salad. As the HRC doesn’t put much faith in handwashing, the cook will chop up the chicken with bare hands and while it is cooking on the barbacue prepare the potato salad without wasting time on washing his hands first. As handwashing is not important, the cook might as well use the chopping board used for the chicken after giving it a fast wipe with a paper towel. Next day we can ask the members of the HRC if they wish to change their position on handwashing.

  10. mysterymeat troll. You are a troll. If you want to debate, then try again but make a factually grounded and logical argument.
    The problems are many. First, the HRC is ignoring the health of the customers. Second, why couldn’t the woman look for a job that did not require dealing with food products? Did she have no skills other than in that area? In that case, she ought to have applied for disability. Third, why is a company obliged to employee someone when there is no work for them?
    The costs of employing someone who is not needed are passed on to the customer in the higher costs of that company’s goods and services. That, for example, is why our Canadian health care system is so absymal; its focus is on its employees and not on its goods/services – and it can’t afford to maintain these employees.
    Fourth, notice that his commission has, like the OHRC under Barbara Hall, moved into making decisions that reject expertise, reject facts and are based only on the ‘equality agendas’ of the people in the commission. So, someone who cannot do the work in a restaurant is equal to someone who can, and both should be employed.
    As Paul Wells wrote about Barbara Hall and her ‘judgment’: “It is appalling — it is appalling — that anyone with legal training and a public forum would say, as Judge (Judge? Whatever…) Hall says in effect, “I am not competent to provide a due-process investigation for this complaint, but he’s guilty. Just look at him”.
    So, the BCHRC has rejected medical evidence and the rights of the employer to hire competent staff, in favour of a multicultural relativism where the competent are equal to the incompetent.
    Only in Canada, eh?

  11. “The Human Right to Foodborne Illness…”
    That’s really, really funny — hurtin’ funny.
    Can you say that with a Danish accent, and make it fatal?

  12. Congrats to the BCHRC for just setting a precedent that ensures no employer in their right mind will now hire an employee who is honest and up front about a disability they suffer from. Oh, I’m sure that they will find some acceptable reason to turn down the application (not enough experience, overqualified, etc.), but the bottom line is that no employer wants to be painted into this corner.
    So while the BCHRC has just protected the rights of one employee (in a mindbogglingly stupid fasion), they’ve damaged the ability of disabled people across the provice to find gainful employment.
    Speaking of someone who suffers from a few disabilities of my own, I’m appalled. I’d like for these idiots (HRCs) to stop helping me. Either I can pull my weight in a job or I can’t. And if I can’t then I expect to be treated the same as any other employee who doesn’t add value to the business, i.e., be shown the door. THAT’S equal treatment.

  13. Tribunal decision includes “…$25,000 for injury to “dignity, feelings, and self-respect.””
    Welcome to Canada… where your right not to be offended comes with a cash payout.

  14. I think I will take my case for not being permitted to play for the Vancouver Canucks to the BCHRC. Just because I can’t skate is no reason why they should discriminate against me…they should make reasonable accommodations for my lack of ability.
    Woo hoo! What a settlement I’ll get!

  15. I think that BCHR should show their compassion and that they care by immediately hiring this poor soul for their own canteen.

  16. It would appear that HRCs are replacing the BC Labour Relations Act and the courts to impose assinine rulings on businesses.
    When a person is hired to do a job, this is a contract(unwritten) between the employer and employee. When the employee can no longer carry out their obligations under the contract the employer has every right to sever the relationship through the non-culpable discharge of the employee.
    There are too many malingerers looking for ways to collect pay for no work, or to collect WCB or sick pay. This will only get worse with the backing of HRCs.

  17. ET, this serves well to demonstrate the BCHRC concept of ‘competence’ and the role it plays in employment and labor. I do believe it would look good on them for a random person (let’s say, a meth addict) to apply for a position with the BCHRC, and then haul their ridiculous asses in front of the CHRC for discriminating against them when they are refused employment.

  18. Mystery Meat:
    You are absolutely right: Mac Donalds are indeed the purveyors of food dangerous to our health.
    But that’s how it was chosen! They (HRC) don’t start with Timmy or Toyota, they choose their victim using the exactly criteria you mentioned: unpopular, even stigmatized company. Just so that there will be no compassion. Next they will come for you.

  19. sean – I think the situation is more complex. It isn’t that the woman was disabled and applied for a job at Macdonalds; she’s apparently already been working there fore 20 years, and developed a skin condition which made washing her hands a problem.
    Macdonalds didn’t have any other position for her, other than in the food area.
    The arrogance of the BCHRC is quite astounding, never the less, for example, in chastizing Macdonalds for not clarifying the doctor’s orders that handwashing be ‘kept to a minimum’..the BCHRC wanted Macdonalds to obtain a specific number of times she could wash her hands (an unreasonable request – no doctor is going to give a number)…

  20. Eeyore:
    Your Canucks are already loaded with players lacking the ability to play hockey…..one more would not improve their chances of not making the playoffs.
    Go Flames Go

  21. I’ve gotta stop reading about HRCs; I can’t stop screaming/crying/laughing hysterically.

  22. if we would all just start eating with our right hand and using our left for defecation as we will in the future, this problem will come to a rapid halt.
    inshah allah

  23. Whatever one may think about the HRC’s being a menace to society, here at least, they are functioning within their intended domain. ‘Duty to accomodate,’ is fairly well established in terms an employer liability, I think independently of the HRC’s, though I could be wrong about this. It would be interesting to have an HR perspective. The idea I presume, is that they could have given her a job that did not involve food handling and the question then is whether to do so would constitute an unreasonable burden to the employer (e.g., having her do office work, janitorial, that kind of thing).
    I think most employers nowadays feel that on balance, the issue is clearly not tipped in their favor, the significant reason being that it seems that disgruntled or poorly performing staff almost invariably claim stress and depression, which then creates (you guessed it) a ‘duty to accomodate’ on mental health grounds, and basically stretches out any discipline or dismissal process to, shall we say, prohibitive lengths.
    The moral of the story is don’t hire anyone and for heaven’s sake (or that of your actual sanity) think twice and then three times before accepting that offer of promotion to middle management.

  24. “I think the situation is more complex. It isn’t that the woman was disabled and applied for a job at Macdonalds; she’s apparently already been working there fore 20 years, and developed a skin condition which made washing her hands a problem.”
    After getting stung like that do you think they’re going to want more disabled employees? Speaking as a small business I owner I know I sure as hell wouldn’t.

  25. Things that make you glad you had a heart attack and don’t eat that garbage anymore……….

  26. This is just sick! Notwithstanding the fact that it is a MacDonalds, which I loathe, it would well apply to any other food service establishment.
    Having worked in the federal uncivil srevice for many years, I am all too familiar with the “Duty to Accomodate” legislation. It is, in a word, a farce.
    Just where the hell is the Public Health People
    in all of this? Sounds to me like a public health issue which should be addressed forthwith.

  27. So what happens if someone gets sick and sues McDonalds, they are in a no-win situation, or for that fact any restaurant.

  28. Before the Central Scrutinizers had their court Ms. Datt would have simply quite her job and promptly gone and found a job driving a bus or some such.
    But nowadays a hand rash can buy you a new Mercedes.
    I long for the brutal days of reality.

  29. Reg: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man —
    Stan: Or woman.
    Reg: Why don’t you shut up about women, Stan? You’re putting us off.
    Stan: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
    Francis: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
    Stan: I want to be one.
    Reg, Francis: What?
    Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me “Loretta”.
    Reg: Wha’?
    Loretta: It’s my right as a man.
    Judith: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
    Loretta: I want to have babies.
    Reg: You want to have babies?!
    Loretta: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
    Reg: But… you can’t have babies.
    Loretta: Don’t you oppress me!
    Reg: I’m not oppressing you, Stan, you haven’t got a womb! Where’s the fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?
    [Stan/Loretta starts to cry.]
    Judith: Here! I-I’ve got an idea. Suppose that you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb — which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’ — but that he can have the right to have babies.
    Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.
    Reg: Wh-what’s the point?
    Francis: Wha’?
    Reg: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?
    Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression!
    Reg: Symbolic of his struggle against reality, more like…

  30. “Ms. Datt could perform some of the duties of a swing manager, work in the drive thru and then perhaps act as hostess.”
    Hmmmm. A McDonalds hostess. Is that like a Walmart greeter? Datts da question.

  31. I work for the feds and I can tell you that accomodation is a big deal and getting bigger. If you have a mid sized company, you would be hard pressed to show “undue hardship”. You would have to look at every job in your company and see if the employee could do those jobs.

  32. I fear Canada is becoming more and more like the loons at the helm of Muzzie-loving England! Is there nowhere in this world that is safe from these Progressive kooks?

  33. This is just sooooo wrong on so many levels.
    No mere human could possibly predict what these people will decide next. BC is now officially closed for business until the legislature or a higher court fixes this travesty.

  34. In a world run by madmen. Being sane is a crime.
    They should have pentioned her off after 20 years.
    Do we have any real courts left, or will this monstrosity just over take any real democratic justice we have left into the incompetent hands of zelots?

  35. *
    c’mon… you guys just don’t “get” the new canadian
    entrepreneurs… “she shoots… she scores!!!”
    and the crowd goes wild.
    *

  37. This BCHRC decision – like MOST HRC decisions of late – is genuinely appalling.
    On the Barbara Hall issue, I suspect that Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine BOTH have a STRONG case against Barbara Hall (or the Ont. Provincial Government that employs her). Both should SUE SUE SUE the Ontario Government/Barbara Hall in a COURT OF LAW.
    I think having Barbara Hall and the Ontario Government charged with defamation of professional character (in Steyn’s case at least) and LOSING would provide a real impetus for change.
    Meanwhile, Warren Kinsella and Richard Warman are both penisheads of the first order.
    Last time I checked, childish namecalling was not illegal.

  38. How many more cases like this do potential customers have to hear about before they decide they are safer not going to any restaurant? Will the HRC require the restaurants to stay open anyway so the disabled employees continue be “accomodated” even if there are no customers?

  39. I wonder what the outcome would have been if her name was Linda Smith? (no offense to any Linda Smiths living or dead)

  40. Even doing business in San Francisco isn’t as bad as this. I didn’t think that I would ever type that sentence.

  41. “A woman who wants to be a sperm donor.”
    foobius
    Now if they blame Richard Warman for the oppression I’d be ok with that. Like Mark Steyn says what goes around comes around even with free speech.

  42. You might be exposed to hep C, aids, food poisoning and a few other dangers, but just think, you wont be exposed to second hand smoke. Who says they don’t out for your health.

  43. I solved the problem long ago about washing your hands after you go to the bathroom. If anyone ever says to me “didn’t your mother tell you to wash your hands after going to the bATHROOM”. I always respond “No, she told me not to pee on my fingers”.
    Horny toad

  44. Geez she worked there for 20 years. I think she deserves some kind of severance. I think this is a very good case for compromise — McDonalds probably could have saved themselves some $$ if they had offered her something.

  45. I agree Linda. I surmise that she became disgruntled, and sought a way to strike back, probably with some coaching. Here we may have yet another brick placed in the wall of association: use the HRC as a club for revenge – the HRCs devolve into a petty cash register for the agrieved and pissed off. What is missing is a governor on these tribunals. What keeps them in check?

  46. Seems like she got a lump sum payment of $25,000, as part of the compensation she got was to cover the taxes on it.
    This is just another reason to stay well away from BC

  47. I was wondering that as well shaken, disgruntled employee, agitating the situation.
    Easy solution would be to use the salad gloves as mentioned above, so many places do? What’s wrong with that? Lots of soaps available that would do in place the usual soap.
    What about hair dressers who become allergic to the tools of their trade? Who do they sue if they’re independent business owners? The hair dye manufactures?

  48. [quote]I fear Canada is becoming more and more like the loons at the helm of Muzzie-loving England! Is there nowhere in this world that is safe from these Progressive kooks? [/quote]
    Gypsy,
    The employment Contracts in England are strange indeed. I recall an American Company that bought a Company in London (was owned by an Italian) that came with an Admin-Assist that never saw the inside of an office. She had a Penthouse Suite & new convertible, every year, leased by the Company. It was obvious she had a “servicing” relationship with the prior CEO. The American Company could not terminate her contract. I assume she still has her no-show job.
    These ridicules Human Rights rulings stifle investment. It seems that BC thinks Companies don’t have standards that protect shareholder value by not doing business under those conditions. It sends a Message!

  49. I am seriously offended by this decision.
    Who do I contact to get compensation?
    $100,000 should assuage the grief, pain and humiliation I have suffered as a result of this ruling.

  50. “There was no evidence of:
    # the relationship between food contamination and hand-washing; the risk to the public if Ms. Datt’s hand-washing was limited”
    >>> Today we are awe struck!
    A new benchmark in administrative amentia has been reached. Also we note that this foolish presumption contradicts the federal and provincial health standards act and their authority.
    So now rights of minority food prep workers to abnormal hygiene practices trumps public health safety.
    Canada has finally produced an administrative edict that can out class the syndicalist foolishness of EU commissions in avant-garde imbecility.
    What a proud day to be Canadian.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation