'Everybody's Business': Human Rights Enforcement and the Union's Duty to Accommodate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the author argues that by imposing a duty to accommodate on unions in the Renaud case, the Supreme Court of Canada intended primarily to encourage unions to cooperate with employer efforts to accommodate, and did not seek to make unions co-liable for all discrimination embedded in collective agreements. The Court’s decision was ambiguous, however, and subsequent tribunals and courts have distorted its original intent by imposing joint (and sometimes sole) liability on unions for discrimination in situations in which they had no meaningful control over bargaining outcomes or no independent ability to accommodate the claimant. Unions have largely avoided Renaud-based liability because, in the decades since that decision, workplace human rights claims have increasingly been dealt with through grievance arbitration (where unions are not vulnerable to co-liability claims) rather than before human rights tribunals. The author sees this as a generally positive development which permits human rights claims to be integrated with collective agreement claims and places primary accountability for workplace discrimination on employers, who are best placed to remedy the discrimination. She acknowledges, however, that dealing with workplace discrimination at arbitration can create conflicts of interest which may require reconsideration of some aspects of current procedure. She concludes that Renaud has largely done the job the Supreme Court intended, although it has done so by influencing union behaviour in arbitration rather than by making unions directly accountable for compliance with statutory human rights norms. She expresses continuing concern about Renaud’s ambiguities and calls on the Supreme Court to clarify Renaud’s message in light of modern conceptions of the duty to accommodate and the realities of workplace power distribution.
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 | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".