The Duty to Accomodate: Its Growing Impact on the Grievance Arbitration Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grievance arbitrators now have a responsibility to interpret and apply human rights legislation in the course of resolving collective agreement disputes. This responsibility, however, raises the question of whether grievance arbitration is the most suitable forum for the application of human rights laws. In Canada, grievance arbitration has been a hybrid process, containing both public and private components. Recent arbitral jurisprudence, however, suggests that arbitrators see themselves as primarily private adjudicators. These cases indicate that arbitrators have been reluctant to give full scope to the duty to accommodate in order to avoid disturbing the terms of the collective agreement. This reluctance of the arbitrators to play a full role as human rights adjudicators means that, although arbitration is now a necessary forum for the resolution of human rights disputes, it is not necessarily the most ideal forum for the enforcement of Canadian human rights laws.
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 | 0.064 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".