MUTUAL ACCOMMODATION OF RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES IN THE WORKPLACE – A JOSTLING OF RIGHTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In and of itself a constitutional democracy is meaningless. It is the extent to which our rights as individuals in a pluralistic society are given effect and respected that brings to life the constitutionally enshrined values and principles. Religious diversity in a secular society acts as a catalyst of ingredients for conflict in the workplace. Specific legislation has been enacted to give effect to the right against unfair discrimination. Our courts have implemented and interpreted such equality legislation as imposing a duty of accommodation on the employer with regards to the employee’s religion. Our labour-law jurisprudence on transfers of business has recognized a duty offairness that cuts both ways in favour of the employee and employer. In operational requirement exercises the co-operation of both parties is required. In Canada, a duty of mutual accommodation has been utilized in religious discrimination cases. The current duty of accommodation should be extended to include a duty of mutual accommodation given that religious pluralism is a phenomenon affecting both employee and employer, thus enjoining both parties to engage in realistic measures to embrace diversity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".