The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • In the Media
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • In the Media
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Must My Employer Pay Me When I Miss Work to Observe a Religious Holiday?

by David Doorey March 27, 2009
written by David Doorey March 27, 2009

This is an issue we discuss in my employment law course.  In Canada, we have a number of ‘statutory’ holidays, many of which are based historically on Christian holy days (Christmas, Easter, etc).  The law regulates those days by giving (most) employees time off on those days.  But there are obviously many other religious holidays that are not recognized as ‘stat’ holidays.  If I observe a faith which has holidays on a regular scheduled work day, am I entitled to take that day off with pay?
This is a human rights law issue.  Human rights codes prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion (creed) in employment.  Employers are required to accommodate religious needs to the point of ‘undue hardship’.  But does that mean that an employer must permit all employee requests for time off with pay to observe religious holidays?
A recent decision of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal considered that question.  In Markovic v. Autocom Manufacturing,  the employee requested time off to celebrate the Eastern Orthodox Christmas of January 7.  The employer developed a policy that provided the employee with a “menu” of options that would enable him to take the day off, but without pay.  For example, he could make the time up by working another day he was not scheduled to work, by trading his shift with another employee, etc.  The employee (and the Ontario Human Rights Commission) argued that the duty to accommodate required the employer to pay the employee for the day off, just like an employee would be paid for the ‘Western Christmas’ date (December 25), unless paying that amount would cause the employer undue hardship.
The Tribunal ruled against that argument.  It found that it is not necessary for an employer to pay employees for not working, but it can instead offer the employee options for observing the holiday without loss of pay by making up the shift somehow:

the obligation on the employer is to design its workplace standards in a way that recognizes differences in religion amongst its individual employees, and accommodates those differences.  The task is to mesh its workplace rules with the needs of a diverse workforce, with the goal of enhancing participation and inclusion.  In the case ofreligious observances, those goals can be met through the provision of options for scheduling changes that do not result in loss of pay.

Note the Tribunal ruled that the law does not require “equality of outcome” in the sense that all employees are treated identically (i.e. if one employee gets paid while observing a religious holiday, all employees must similarly be paid).   Do you think the Tribunal applied an appropriate balance here between the rights of the employee and the business concerns of the employer?

2 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is a Full Professor of Work Law and Labour Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Debates about the Employment Insurance Model
next post
FedEx Sulks About Labor Law Reform

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018


Follow Us On Social Media

Substack
Bluesky

BlueSky Latest Posts

No posts available.

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • Constructive Dismissal
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gender
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • New Zealand
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • Tax Law
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.