In late September 2024, the Greater Victoria Public Library (GVPL) was taken before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal over an alleged act of discrimination towards a librarian.
The complainant in this case is Tracy Obsniuk. She says that GVPL changed her shift schedule in a way that interfered with her childcare obligations.
GVPL denies the allegation, saying that Obsniuk did not communicate that the schedule interfered with her childcare needs.
Additionally, GVPL says that they gave the librarian permission to take a leave of absence in order to sort out her childcare situation and allege that she did not put in enough effort during this time.
Meanwhile, Obsniuk says she did pursue all avenues when trying to find alternative childcare.
What the Human Rights Tribunal’s task was in this case, was to determine if GVPL impacted Obsniuk, if it would have been too difficult to allow her to work a modified schedule that worked for her and if the leave of absence was a reasonable accommodation.
Obsniuk’s request
In April 2019, during her employment with GVPL, a standardized schedule was implemented for those in her position where the shift would finish at 6 p.m.
Before this change, she finished work at 5 p.m.
Obsniuk says prior to this change being made, she communicated that this would interfere with her 5-year-old child’s after school and seasonal camp pick-up times, which is between 5:45 p.m. and 6 p.m., and 5:30 p.m., respectively.
She requested her schedule be modified to the working hours of 9:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.
This would allow her to pick up her child within the time allotted to her by the childcare solutions she had available to her.
GVPL responded to her request by offering Obsniuk an “interim plan”, in which she would be allowed to leave work early on the days she had to pick up her child.
This arrangement was only offered for three months, with the expectation that Obsniuk would make other childcare arrangements.
In June 2019, a meeting between GVPL and Obsniuk was organized to discuss her schedule in which she told her higher-ups the efforts she had made to find an alternative to her present after school care. Obsniuk told them she could not find any options with a pickup time after 6 p.m.
GVPL then told her that she could continue leaving early, but would not be compensated for that time, or she could use her vacation time to leave early.
Another meeting was held in November 2019, where Obsniuk reiterated her efforts to find alternative after school care to no avail.
She also told GVPL that the stress that came with the schedule change had been negatively impacting her mental health.
Obsniuk says that GVPL told her they would meet again in January 2020 to discuss next steps.
Following the November meeting, Obsniuk took a medical leave of absence from December 19th, 2019, to January 8th, 2020. This leave was prompted by the stress that came with her schedule situation.
After she had returned from her medical leave, Obsniuk met again with GVPL in which she was presented with three options:
- Stay in her permanent position and work the standardized schedule
- Resign from her current position and accept an on-call position
- Take a two-month unpaid leave to make alternative childcare arrangements
Obsniuk was also told by GVPL that after two months, she would not be allowed to use unpaid leave or vacation time to alter her schedule.
She chose to stay in her position and work the standardized schedule.
The next development was the closure of GVPL due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which lasted from March 17th, 2020, to June 26th, 2020.
Following the reopening, both Obsniuk and GVPL agreed that she would have the occasional conflict with her schedule due to childcare obligations.
At some point during 2020, Obsniuk’s common-law partner secured new employment that allowed him to assist with picking up her child from after school care, and at this time, the Human Rights Tribunal determined she no longer requires a modified work schedule.
Tribunal decision
GVPL tried to have the complaint made by Obsniuk dismissed, but the onus is on them to establish a basis for dismissal.
Based on precedent set by other cases, the Human Rights Tribunal determined that Obsniuk should have the chance to present her case.
“The Tribunal must base its decision on the materials filed by the parties, and not on speculation about what evidence may be filed at the hearing,” wrote Theressa Etmanski, Presiding Tribunal Member.
The Tribunal decided that to prove her complaint at a hearing, Obsniuk will have to prove that she has a characteristic protected by the Code, she was adversely impacted in her employment, and her protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact.
“If she did that, the burden would shift to the Library to justify the impact as a bona fide occupational requirement. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination,” wrote Etmanski.
Conclusion
The Human Rights Tribunal ultimately decided to allow this complaint to go to a hearing; however, Etmanski encouraged both involved parties to utilize the Tribunal’s mediation services to resolve the conflict.
