Carlo Di Giovani

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer and union.

Following an interim decision dismissing most allegations, the Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the remaining allegation—that the employer discriminated by not paying a spread allowance for split shifts worked as a rear door loader—had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal allowed the allegation against the employer to proceed, noting that rear door loaders are primarily disabled workers and one of the few categories not receiving the allowance.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union, finding no evidence that its failure to negotiate the allowance was based on a discriminatory factor.

The applicant, a long-term employee, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

He claimed the employer failed to accommodate his workplace preferences regarding days off, hours, and location, despite providing work that met his disability-related limitations.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed most of the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to provide a perfect solution or meet preferences unrelated to Code needs.

Allegations against the union and claims of reprisal were also dismissed as speculative.

The Tribunal requested further submissions on whether the failure to pay a spread allowance for accommodated work was discriminatory.