A reader asks who protects employees when accommodation requests are ignored. Scott Taymun, a former public service executive, provides a primer on accountability under the Duty to Accommodate in the federal public service.
The Growing Disconnect
There is a widening gap between workplace policy and reality in the federal public service, creating risks for employees needing accommodation. Return-to-office mandates, workforce adjustments, and performance frameworks often ignore medical or family-related limits. In documented cases, employees with valid return-to-work clearances face delays or no identified decision-maker. Meanwhile, those with childcare obligations face impossible conflicts between workplace expectations and fixed caregiving responsibilities. These are not isolated issues but reflect systemic gaps in accountability.
Who Is Accountable?
The Duty to Accommodate is enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). Federally regulated employers must adjust working conditions to prevent unfair exclusion. Managers, with advice from Labour Relations, must work with employees to accommodate requests up to the point of undue hardship, considering health, safety, cost, and operational requirements.
Employees must cooperate fully in finding solutions. They can engage their union, but the union's primary legal role is to represent the bargaining unit as a whole. Under the duty of fair representation, unions must act in good faith and follow due procedures, including supporting grievances if management fails to address accommodation issues.
Employee Responsibility
Employees must take ownership of their accommodation issues. They should track grievance timelines, internal procedures, and document all discussions with management and union representatives. Effective accommodation requires collaborative problem-solving from all parties.
As a former federal executive, Taymun treated accommodation requests seriously, taking them at face value in good faith. He expected employees to follow due process with documentation to prevent abuse. Labour relations advisors and union representatives were welcome to engage in finding solutions. While solutions were often found, not all parties consistently bring good faith or complete information, leading to errors and inconsistencies.
Accountability Mechanisms
Multiple mechanisms protect employees: workplace wellness offices, ombuds services, confidential disclosure mechanisms, labour board processes, and independent legal advice. Unionized employees can file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), which expects them to use available labour arbitration first. Employees should demand duty of fair representation, document all engagements, and request written analysis from their union.
Ultimately, if support from manager or union is lacking, the responsibility to act lies with the employee. The Duty to Accommodate is a legal right. If an employer fails, recourse includes taking the case to the CHRC and the courts.
Scott Taymun is a former federal executive with over 30 years of service across seven departments. He served as chief of staff to the clerk of the Privy Council and helped design public sector management reforms after the sponsorship scandal. He retired in October 2023.
Public service workers with workplace questions can write to PSConfidential@postmedia.com. This column is an advice series by guest contributors; it does not constitute legal advice.
