A Greater Victoria Public Library staffer who was told to choose between her job or picking up her child from after-school care on time will get a hearing with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
Tracy Obsniuk alleges her employer, the Greater Victoria Public Library Board, discriminated against her on the basis of family status by changing her shift schedule “in a manner that interfered with her child care obligations,” then “refused to provide her with reasonable accommodation.”
In April 2019, Obsniuk was working as a library assistant with a branch of the GVPL from Tuesday to Saturday, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. At the time, she was the sole legal guardian of a five-year-old child who required pickup from after-school care as early as 5:30 p.m.
When the library implemented a standardized schedule for all staff, with Obsniuk’s changed to a 10 a.m. start and a 6 p.m. finish, it made it impossible for her to pick up her child on time. She was able to make alternative pickup arrangements with family for two of the five work days.
“She requested that her schedule be modified to 9:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m., which would allow her to pick up her child before the child care centre closed. The library denied this request,” read the decision.
Instead, the library offered an interim solution in which Obsniuk would be allowed to leave work early on days she had to pick up her child, for a period of three months. During that time, the expectation was that Obsniuk would try to find alternative child care that would allow her to work until 6 p.m.
After three months, Obsniuk again met with her employer and explained she was unable to find an after-school program servicing her child’s school that was open past 6 p.m. The employer then told her she could leave early without pay or use vacation time to pick up her child until September of that year.
In November 2019, Obsniuk again met with the library to explain she had exhausted all options and that “the stress accompanying her change of schedule was negatively impacting her health.” A meeting was set for January 2020 to discuss next steps.
Obsniuk then went on a one-month medical leave, stating it “was in part due to the stress caused by the change in her work schedule and the impact it had on her child care obligations.”
When she returned to work in January, the employer told Obsniuk she could either stay in her permanent position and work the required shifts, quit her role and take an on-call position with lower pay and no guaranteed shifts, or take a two-month unpaid leave to search for new child care.
The employer told Obsniuk that “after two months she would no longer be permitted to use unpaid leave or vacation time to modify her schedule.” She opted to stay in her permanent position and work the standardized schedule.
The library later closed from March to June 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Upon reopening, Obsniuk remained in her role and experienced occasional scheduling conflicts, but her common-law partner got a new job in 2020 that allowed him to help with child care pickups.
In the decision, tribunal member Theressa Etmanski said she was not convinced that the employer had considered all options for accommodating Obsniuk’s child care obligations or that requiring Obsniuk to work the standardized schedule was absolutely necessary for the library’s operation.
She also was not convinced by the employer’s argument that requiring Obsniuk to take unpaid leave did not cause a financial hardship, or that Obsniuk’s failure to arrange alternative child care was just a matter of having sufficient time to search.
Etmanski denied the employer’s application to dismiss the case and the complaint will proceed to a hearing.
