Rights and responsibility are two central aspects of a civilized society. But, does one take precedence over the other? Can a person who does not fulfil their responsibility claim rights violation if prosecuted for their irresponsible behaviour? Are prosecutors violating a labour’s rights if they take action against unwarranted behaviour?
The following excerpts cite the case of Linda Horrocks, a health worker from Manitoba, Canada, who was fired when she was caught drinking on her job. The action was contested, and the final verdict by the Supreme Court of Canada showcased precedence towards unprejudiced justice philosophy dissertation topics.
Read on and learn more.
Linda Horrocks vs The Supreme Court Of Canada
A Manitoba healthcare worker, Linda Horrocks, was fired from her job for drinking alcohol. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled declared that she cannot challenge her termination under Manitoba’s Human Rights Code.
The ruling supported and sided with Horrock’s employer. Their argument states that disputes between a unionized employee and their respective employer on issues covered by collective agreement can be settled only by a labour arbitrator working alongside both parties Intel Case Study.
The Supreme Court ruling has significant ramifications for the Canadian justice system. This is because the human rights codes and acts about labour relations in many Canadian provinces are sourced from legal principles & statutes.
Origins of the Dispute
The case stems from the 2011 suspension and eventual firing of Linda Horrocks from a nursing home operated by the Northern Regional Health Authority in Flin Flon, Manitoba, Canada.
Horrocks suffered from alcohol dependency, and this disability was recognized by her employer, the collective agreement of the employee union, and the Manitoba Human Rights Code. As a result, she was suspended from work for working intoxicated. However, the health authority offered Linda Horrocks her job back if she abstained from alcohol altogether. She refused to sign that agreement, stating that it was biased and discriminated against her due to her recognized disability, and eventually fired college paper writing.
Horrocks sent a grievance about her termination to the union. She negotiated a deal with her employer, alongside support from the union, which allowed her to return to work. Conditions were that she would have to abstain from drinking, seek counselling and submit to random alcohol tests.
However, her employer received reports that Horrocks was intoxicated outside of work, but allegations were denied outright by her. Her employer did not believe in her denials, concluded that she breached her agreement, and summarily fired her.
[H denotes Horrocks]
H was barred from coming to work under the influence of alcohol. After H bared her alcohol dependence and refused to agree with dependence treatments, her employment was terminated. H’s union filed a grievance, and her job was reinstated on mainly the same terms as the agreement H had refused to subscribe to. Shortly later, H’s employment was terminated for an alleged breach of those terms. H filed a demarcation complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, which was heard by an adjudicator appointed under The Human Rights Code Best Buy Case Study help.
The employer queried the adjudicator’s governance, arguing that the exclusive authority of the mediator appointed under a collaborative agreement extends to mortal rights complaints arising from union & employer disputes. The adjudicator dissented, chancing that she had governance because the nature of the disagreement was an alleged mortal rights violation. She considered the graces of the complaint and plant that the employer had discerned against H.
On judicial review, the reviewing judge revealed errors in the adjudicator’s characterization regarding the essential character of the disagreement. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal allowed H’s appeal. It agreed that controversies concerning the termination of a unionized worker require the exclusive governance of a neutral labour arbitrator, including any contended rights violations. Nonetheless, it held that the adjudicator had authority in the case and referred to the reviewing judge regarding the reasonability of the decision.
Former case precedents show that where labour legislation controversies arise from a collaborative agreement, the governance of the decision-maker empowered by that legislation — generally, a labour adjudicator — is exclusive. In this case, the essential character of H’s complaint falls precisely within the labour adjudicator’s accreditation, and there’s no expressive legislative intent to grant governance to the human rights lawyers over similar controversies. Accordingly, the reviewing judge’s set aside the adjudicator’s decision and ordered further judgement Assignment on Conflict Management.
Rather than filing a grievance against her employer, Horrocks sent a complaint to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. An adjudicator ruled that she suffered discrimination due to her disability. The adjudicator ordered the employer o rehire Horrocks and compensate her. The health authority challenged the governance of the Human Rights Commission, and a court agreed, ruling that a labour adjudicator had control in the case, NOT A HUMAN RIGHTS ADJUDICATOR. Horrocks had that decision capsized at the court of appeal, which ruled in 2017 that the commission and a labour adjudicator had governance in the case and transferred it back to the lower court.
The health authority appealed against the decision to the country’s top court ( The Supreme Court Of Canada), where six judges heard the case and sided with Horrocks’ employer, ruling that the Labour Relations Act holds precedence over the Human Rights Code in this particular case.
The ruling declared that Ms Horrocks’ complaint alleges a violation of the collaborative agreement and therefore falls precisely within the labour adjudicator’s accreditation. It means that the decision by the state’s Human Rights Commission asking Horrocks to be reinstated has no legal standing.
Horrocks’ counsel Paul Champ stated his and Linda Horrock’s dissatisfaction with the ruling.
Key-Takeaway: A worker’s rights and responsibilities overlap substantially. In the case cited above, Linda Horrock’s irresponsible working behaviour and dependency directly conflicted with her right to employment. Rights and associated employment benefits are formulated under mutual consent, and any severe violation can lead to termination.
From a broader, philosophical perspective, an irresponsible person is responsible for situations that nullify their rights to humane treatment because of their unreliable nature.
Author-Bio: Thomas Barton is a blogger and freelance journalist from Canada. He is also a part-time tutor and writer at MyAsignmenthelp.com, a leading academic writing service.