The respondents rely on the following from Quackenbush v. Purves Ritchie, 2004 BCHRT 10 (judicial review pending) to support their position: The Respondent, relying on recent labour arbitration cases, submits that the duty to accommodate does not require and (sic) employer to create a new position, reorganize the workplace, or restructure existing jobs… I agree with the Respondent’s submission. If an employee is reassigned for bona fide reasons, the Respondent does not have an obligation to create a new position, reorganize the workplace, or restructure existing jobs. However, where, as in this case, an employee can be accommodated in another position, the Respondent still has an obligation to explore all options, to the point of undue hardship, before they will satisfy their duty to accommodate.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.