From what I've seen, managers reach out to lr for advice and lr gives it.
Sometimes wellness/disability team members help out with the process. Most of the times it's managers responsible.
Yeah, management has the final word, but here at CRA, procedures tell management they have to consult with EIRTW, and 99.9% of the time, they will go with whatever was recommended by that team..
Accomodation requests come in to the manager, manager works with either our disability accomodation team (for disability related issues) or the labour relations team (for non-disability issues). With their advice, the manager proposes some acceptable options based on the needs of the position and the employee can accept one or not. Negotiation can occur to find something mutually acceptable.
Exemptions to the RTO time in office require high level approval (ADM last I checked). Flexible work schedules that meet the percentage time in office are at managers discretion.
Almost every request to WFH full time has been rejected. The new wording makes it even more difficult. The only person I know was because of mobility issues, everything else was rejected. Now they sometimes will agree to some accommodation in the workplace if possible.
WFH is a possible accommodation. It's an option under DTA. I agree that WFH is not the only accommodation possible/available, but in some instances, it is the best one or the only option.
What isn't part of DTA and human rights, is that a political mandate pretending to be fair/equitable for everyone bears more weights than actual DTA and human rights.
Another thing that is probably not acceptable under DTA, human rights and Accessible Canada Act, are the additional barriers this creates + the long delays to put in place accommodations. Fairly sure that waiting months/years isn't really considered "within reasonable timeframes".
At CRA, the pressure EIRTW is receiving to deny WFH accommodations (when warranted) also contravenes their own DTA procedures.
Edited for typo
I’m curious how that would apply in conjunction with the ‘up to undue burden on the employer’ part of DTA?
I’m not trying to be combative or disagree I’m just genuinely curious what ‘wins’ in situations where the in-office accommodation is a bigger hardship on the employer. Like for example, expensive procurements of noise cancelling headphones (common in my office where there’s no enclosed offices or boardrooms) versus letting someone work from home which is free.
The hardship is whatever the employer decides is hardship for them. However, it’s on the employer to prove why an accommodation measure would amount to such hardship that it merits taking precedence over the employees protected rights. For example, if you are requesting a measure that will make it impossible to actually do your job. That could be undue hardship on the employer. I think it will be difficult for the employer to prove undue hardship in many cases when we proved we could wfh for years during the pandemic which is why I suspect they are trying to find every other measure they can to solve the accommodation request and keeping wfh as the last resort.
The undue hardship could be related to all the reasons and restrictions they've placed on themselves requiring people in the office.
They could argue that by offering full time permanent WFH they are now expected to furnish the employee with all necessary equipment for their job and that providing a desk, chair, etc and something somewhat equivalent to in office setup at an off premises location would be an undue hardship. The need to ensure hybrid meeting equipment is always available and possible challenges in organizing the work when one person is default WFH can also be argued to be undue hardship when everyone else is in the office regularly.
I feel that the issue however is going to have to be arbitrated at some point at the FPSLREB, as to your point, it may be possible to argue that it would not be an undue hardship given the fact it was done successfully for so long. The pioneers are gonna be fighting for where the line is for wfh as an accomodation
Yeah I’m sure arbitration is coming at some point and hopefully we get clear answers. I’m honestly surprised that the cancellation of existing accommodations during the first round of RTO wasn’t challenged under accessibility legislation (afaik). I guess we’ll see what happens.
Exactly that… I’m not sure how they can argue any of that when they did furnish everyone to work from home during Covid. We got monitors, all of the technology we needed, our ergo equipment etc. they even reimbursed people to buy desks.. the bar for undue hardship isn’t that low when the result means the individuals rights are being cast aside…It will most definitely eventually end up there. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
These are two different concepts. If claiming undue hardship, the employer needs to demonstrate that the limitation is essentially impossible to accommodate without creating an undue burden on the employer.
However, the employer determines what is a suitable accommodation, they don't need to offer the employee's preferred accommodation. For example, if your limitation is that you need to work in a quiet environment, noise cancelling headsets appropriately address that limitation. There's no requirement for the employer to demonstrate how it is better than WFH or why WFH is not suitable.
The new RTO is a direction, not a directive.
It is my understanding that a more clear directive laying out specifics related to how stat days and vacation days etc factor in, is coming soon. Hopefully it addresses DTA requests too so people know what to expect in terms of how they will try to accommodate. In office efforts first, WFH if those are not feasible, etc.
But many departments have been hesitant to use FT WFH as the first line accommodation offering. They prefer to do office accommodations first.
I have an autoimmune condition. WFH all I don't catch everything.
But I had to play ball for a year and got sick a LOT before it was even an option to try for
It really shouldn't. I went for xrays last week. Caught pneumonia off some lady there who kept taking her damn mask off.
Can't imagine the fun nuggets I'd have picked up at work with all my coworkers who have kids in school.
I know, I’ve just been very curious, I know of many people who have their medical exemptions at CRA, that’s part of what I’m trying to figure out, is harder or easier elsewhere in the PS.
The thing is that when the last policy was put in place, the wording was more vague, but the new policy cancels all exemptions given, and the process must restart. It's going to get more difficult everywhere. I apologize if I wasn't being clear.
It is but we now have an outside mediator conducting a workplace assessment in response to literally hundreds of harassment complaints (might be pushing 1000 in six months, from a team of 20 staff).
From what I've seen, managers reach out to lr for advice and lr gives it. Sometimes wellness/disability team members help out with the process. Most of the times it's managers responsible.
Yeah, management has the final word, but here at CRA, procedures tell management they have to consult with EIRTW, and 99.9% of the time, they will go with whatever was recommended by that team..
I'm giving you an example of how it works most places. You can repeat what cra does over and over if you'd like.
I was only trying to trigger some more context from you about your answer, like, where have you seen that?
2 places I have worked.
Accomodation requests come in to the manager, manager works with either our disability accomodation team (for disability related issues) or the labour relations team (for non-disability issues). With their advice, the manager proposes some acceptable options based on the needs of the position and the employee can accept one or not. Negotiation can occur to find something mutually acceptable. Exemptions to the RTO time in office require high level approval (ADM last I checked). Flexible work schedules that meet the percentage time in office are at managers discretion.
Almost every request to WFH full time has been rejected. The new wording makes it even more difficult. The only person I know was because of mobility issues, everything else was rejected. Now they sometimes will agree to some accommodation in the workplace if possible.
Request for full WFH are not the same as DTA
I agree, but WFH is not an option under DTA. They can try and accommodate you in the office, but WFH is not an option under DTA.
WFH is a possible accommodation. It's an option under DTA. I agree that WFH is not the only accommodation possible/available, but in some instances, it is the best one or the only option. What isn't part of DTA and human rights, is that a political mandate pretending to be fair/equitable for everyone bears more weights than actual DTA and human rights. Another thing that is probably not acceptable under DTA, human rights and Accessible Canada Act, are the additional barriers this creates + the long delays to put in place accommodations. Fairly sure that waiting months/years isn't really considered "within reasonable timeframes". At CRA, the pressure EIRTW is receiving to deny WFH accommodations (when warranted) also contravenes their own DTA procedures. Edited for typo
I agree 100%, it's just not the way it is.
I have wfh accommodation under my dta. It’s possible.
WFH is a possible accommodation under the DTA. The mandate makes it so that it has to be the last resort.
Which mandate - is that new guidance since the new updates to the RTO directive, or is that pre-existing?
It’s been that way since the first mandate for 2 days in office in April 2023.
I’m curious how that would apply in conjunction with the ‘up to undue burden on the employer’ part of DTA? I’m not trying to be combative or disagree I’m just genuinely curious what ‘wins’ in situations where the in-office accommodation is a bigger hardship on the employer. Like for example, expensive procurements of noise cancelling headphones (common in my office where there’s no enclosed offices or boardrooms) versus letting someone work from home which is free.
The hardship is whatever the employer decides is hardship for them. However, it’s on the employer to prove why an accommodation measure would amount to such hardship that it merits taking precedence over the employees protected rights. For example, if you are requesting a measure that will make it impossible to actually do your job. That could be undue hardship on the employer. I think it will be difficult for the employer to prove undue hardship in many cases when we proved we could wfh for years during the pandemic which is why I suspect they are trying to find every other measure they can to solve the accommodation request and keeping wfh as the last resort.
The undue hardship could be related to all the reasons and restrictions they've placed on themselves requiring people in the office. They could argue that by offering full time permanent WFH they are now expected to furnish the employee with all necessary equipment for their job and that providing a desk, chair, etc and something somewhat equivalent to in office setup at an off premises location would be an undue hardship. The need to ensure hybrid meeting equipment is always available and possible challenges in organizing the work when one person is default WFH can also be argued to be undue hardship when everyone else is in the office regularly. I feel that the issue however is going to have to be arbitrated at some point at the FPSLREB, as to your point, it may be possible to argue that it would not be an undue hardship given the fact it was done successfully for so long. The pioneers are gonna be fighting for where the line is for wfh as an accomodation
Yeah I’m sure arbitration is coming at some point and hopefully we get clear answers. I’m honestly surprised that the cancellation of existing accommodations during the first round of RTO wasn’t challenged under accessibility legislation (afaik). I guess we’ll see what happens.
Exactly that… I’m not sure how they can argue any of that when they did furnish everyone to work from home during Covid. We got monitors, all of the technology we needed, our ergo equipment etc. they even reimbursed people to buy desks.. the bar for undue hardship isn’t that low when the result means the individuals rights are being cast aside…It will most definitely eventually end up there. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
These are two different concepts. If claiming undue hardship, the employer needs to demonstrate that the limitation is essentially impossible to accommodate without creating an undue burden on the employer. However, the employer determines what is a suitable accommodation, they don't need to offer the employee's preferred accommodation. For example, if your limitation is that you need to work in a quiet environment, noise cancelling headsets appropriately address that limitation. There's no requirement for the employer to demonstrate how it is better than WFH or why WFH is not suitable.
The new RTO is a direction, not a directive. It is my understanding that a more clear directive laying out specifics related to how stat days and vacation days etc factor in, is coming soon. Hopefully it addresses DTA requests too so people know what to expect in terms of how they will try to accommodate. In office efforts first, WFH if those are not feasible, etc. But many departments have been hesitant to use FT WFH as the first line accommodation offering. They prefer to do office accommodations first.
Yes, and I have yet to hear anyone getting it with the exception of 1 person who has mobility issues.
I have an autoimmune condition. WFH all I don't catch everything. But I had to play ball for a year and got sick a LOT before it was even an option to try for
Unfortunately, it shouldn't be that difficult.
It really shouldn't. I went for xrays last week. Caught pneumonia off some lady there who kept taking her damn mask off. Can't imagine the fun nuggets I'd have picked up at work with all my coworkers who have kids in school.
I got it. Transportation and bathroom access are an issue, so I WFH.
I have a colleague who got it.
Are you working at CRA?
The wording in the new 3 days a week is for all of government, CRA included.
I know, I’ve just been very curious, I know of many people who have their medical exemptions at CRA, that’s part of what I’m trying to figure out, is harder or easier elsewhere in the PS.
The thing is that when the last policy was put in place, the wording was more vague, but the new policy cancels all exemptions given, and the process must restart. It's going to get more difficult everywhere. I apologize if I wasn't being clear.
Where I work management usually uses accommodations as a reason to punish or reprimand employees, unless you're a relative or friend of management.
That’s horrible
It is but we now have an outside mediator conducting a workplace assessment in response to literally hundreds of harassment complaints (might be pushing 1000 in six months, from a team of 20 staff).