Les Accommodements Raisonnables (AR) Et Les Milieux De Travail AU Québec : Nous Aurons Les AR Que Nous Avons ! (Reasonable Accommodation and the Workplace in Québec: A Practice About to Be Standardised)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Le present chapitre propose un survol de la question des AR en contexte constitutionnel canadien et quebecois. La premiere Partie opere un survol de la realite statistique de la discrimination raciale et du racisme, notamment en milieu de travail, avant d’exposer comment la Cour supreme du Canada en est arrivee a conceptualiser les AR a titre de remede a la discrimination et notamment a la discrimination fondee sur les croyances et sur les convictions religieuses. Le milieu du travail a significativement contribue a cette evolution jurisprudentielle. Elle s’attarde aussi au principe de la neutralite de l’Etat et a ses consequences, tel que les concoit le droit canadien. La seconde Partie de ce chapitre examine les attributs d’un AR en milieu de travail. Car, autant l’AR decoule d’une discrimination constatee, autant, a titre de solution au cas a cas, il comporte des limites. Toutefois, on verra que le droit du travail et les contrats collectifs de travail incorporent de plus en plus l’exigence des AR a la loi des parties, generant ainsi des pratiques novatrices et de-stigmatisantes pour les demandeurs d’AR, incluant en matiere religieuse. Enfin, la derniere Partie de ce chapitre presentera en trois temps legislatifs successifs les tentatives du legislateur quebecois non seulement d’introduire des balises statutaires au AR, mais parfois aussi, d’aller au-dela de telles balises afin de les contraindre, voire de les interdire, au nom de la neutralite ou de la laicite de l’Etat. Au Quebec, le debat entourant les AR de nature religieuse s’est avere avant tout un debat politique qui peut incidemment servir l’Etat quebecois a titre d’employeur et ce, en simplifiant la vie des gestionnaires appeles a determiner la legitimite d’une demande d’AR en milieu de travail. Toutefois, la bienveillance du legislateur a cet egard ne saurait dominer l’exigence de la norme d’egalite et ses consequences. En cela reside la force, mais aussi la complexite de cette norme en droit constitutionnel canadien et quebecois. English Abstract: Reasonable accommodations (RA) are remedies to discrimination, namely in the workplace. The province of Quebec, a distinct society inside Canada, experienced over the last decade a harsh debate on the issue. If RA are not limited to faith based discrimination, it is the issue of religion that divides more deeply the workplace. RA are not unlimited. But the employer, as well as the employees’ representatives, must go to the limit of undue hardship to accommodate individuals asking for RA: scheduling, servicing, dressing, food service, are often at the forefront of such discussions. Can civic values present specific limitations to RA? So far, the answer is negative. But even more, the caselaw and the practice of labor conditions bargaining shows creative adaptation to RA requirements. After all, requesting a short leave from work for family reasons or for religious reasons does not make a real difference to management. Life and work reconciliation as a management quest may lead to the disappearance of identity benchmarking at work, as in the case of religion and religious practices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".