What are the key facts and labor law references in the case “Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, section locale 1108 v. CHU de Québec — Université Laval, 2020 QCCA 857 (Reasonable Accommodation for Health Reasons)”?

Question from Dine, What are the key facts and labor law references in the case “Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, section locale 1108 v. CHU de Québec — Université Laval, 2020 QCCA 857 (Reasonable Accommodation for Health Reasons)”?

Answer from AI:

The case “Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, section locale 1108 v. CHU de Québec — Université Laval, 2020 QCCA 857” is a Canadian case that deals with the issue of reasonable accommodation for health reasons in the workplace. The case is under the jurisdiction of the Quebec Court of Appeal, which is the highest court in the province of Quebec, Canada.

Key Facts

The key facts of the case are as follows:

• The case involves a dispute between the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Local 1108, and the CHU de Québec — Université Laval.
• The dispute arose when an employee, who had health issues, requested a change in her work schedule as a reasonable accommodation.
• The employer refused the request, arguing that it would cause undue hardship.

Labor Law References

The case references several key aspects of labor law, including:

• The duty of employers to accommodate employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship, as outlined in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
• The concept of “reasonable accommodation,” which refers to modifications or adjustments to a job or work environment that enable a person with a disability to perform their job duties.
• The concept of “undue hardship,” which refers to significant difficulty or expense incurred by an employer in providing accommodation.

Legal Jurisdiction

The case falls under the jurisdiction of the Quebec Court of Appeal in Canada. This court has the authority to review decisions made by lower courts in the province of Quebec. It is important to note that the decisions made by this court are binding on lower courts within the same jurisdiction.

Please note: This summary provides a general overview of the case and does not constitute legal advice. For specific advice related to this case or any other legal matter, please consult with a legal professional.