Teh One Who Knocks
05-09-2014, 10:59 AM
Sarah Boesveld - National Post
http://i.imgur.com/dIjZA0p.jpg
A British Columbia man has claimed a parental leave benefits policy, designed to be inclusive to same-sex parents, discriminates against him because he is a heterosexual father.
Alexander Angus filed a human rights complaint against his employer, the City of Victoria, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 50 over his eligibility for Supplementary Employment Insurance Benefits, meant to top-up federal maternity leave benefits.
The union’s collective agreement at the time had a clause saying that in the case of same-sex couples, if the employee is the primary caregiver, that employee would be deemed the mother and qualify for the top-up.
Mr. Angus, who planned to be the primary caregiver of their future firstborn child, read that as a “blatant show of inequality,” according to documents filed with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
“My understanding of this is that I am not eligible for SEIB because of a) my gender, and b) my sexual orientation,” he wrote in an email to the city’s director of human resources in December of 2010. “Because I am male I do not qualify for these benefits, although if I were to marry another male I would?”
The HR director responded that she did not “believe there is an inequity as a male cannot give birth.”
Mr. Angus wrote to the union president. “I believe as an equal partner in parenting I should be offered the same benefit as a female co-worker.”
He was told that Local 50 would be tabling a proposal during collective bargaining to address any inequity that “may arguably exist,” president John Burrows wrote. The only other option would be to file a grievance once he applied for, and was denied, the benefit by the City of Victoria.
The union would not comment when the National Post sought clarification of whether the tabled proposal — which only officially became part of the new collective agreement in July 2013 — was in direct response to Mr. Angus’s complaint or had already been in the works.
The final word was that Mr. Angus, as that current collective agreement stood, would not qualify for the top-up, which he felt he would need in order to care for his future child.
The issue took on urgency when Mr. Angus’s wife became pregnant in September 2012. He never applied for the top-up because he was “discouraged,” he said, and “given to understand any attempt would be futile and pointless.”
Instead, he filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in which he claimed to have suffered adverse treatment because he didn’t qualify for the SEIB top-up at the time his child was born and his wife was required to leave her job when the baby arrived. It cost his family in wages and work experience, he said, as his wife had a temporary acting senior management position at the time.
“Mr. Angus submits the Union and the City have shown their guilt by acting swiftly to amend the collective agreement once he brought his Complaint to the Tribunal,” the complaint reads. The union said there was no basis for Mr. Angus’s allegation that CUPE Local 50 and the City dragged their heels. The allegation that he could have been entitled to the top-up if he was in a same-sex relationship is “speculative and ignores the advice of the union,” the union’s reply reads.
It’s irrelevant that Mr. Angus was not actually denied the SEIB top-up, tribunal member Robert Blasina wrote in his decision, released May 1. It’s the policy itself that could possibly be considered discriminatory.
The tribunal denied the city and union’s applications to dismiss the complaint, and instead encouraged both parties to accept mediation.
Mr. Angus was not available for comment Wednesday.
http://i.imgur.com/dIjZA0p.jpg
A British Columbia man has claimed a parental leave benefits policy, designed to be inclusive to same-sex parents, discriminates against him because he is a heterosexual father.
Alexander Angus filed a human rights complaint against his employer, the City of Victoria, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 50 over his eligibility for Supplementary Employment Insurance Benefits, meant to top-up federal maternity leave benefits.
The union’s collective agreement at the time had a clause saying that in the case of same-sex couples, if the employee is the primary caregiver, that employee would be deemed the mother and qualify for the top-up.
Mr. Angus, who planned to be the primary caregiver of their future firstborn child, read that as a “blatant show of inequality,” according to documents filed with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
“My understanding of this is that I am not eligible for SEIB because of a) my gender, and b) my sexual orientation,” he wrote in an email to the city’s director of human resources in December of 2010. “Because I am male I do not qualify for these benefits, although if I were to marry another male I would?”
The HR director responded that she did not “believe there is an inequity as a male cannot give birth.”
Mr. Angus wrote to the union president. “I believe as an equal partner in parenting I should be offered the same benefit as a female co-worker.”
He was told that Local 50 would be tabling a proposal during collective bargaining to address any inequity that “may arguably exist,” president John Burrows wrote. The only other option would be to file a grievance once he applied for, and was denied, the benefit by the City of Victoria.
The union would not comment when the National Post sought clarification of whether the tabled proposal — which only officially became part of the new collective agreement in July 2013 — was in direct response to Mr. Angus’s complaint or had already been in the works.
The final word was that Mr. Angus, as that current collective agreement stood, would not qualify for the top-up, which he felt he would need in order to care for his future child.
The issue took on urgency when Mr. Angus’s wife became pregnant in September 2012. He never applied for the top-up because he was “discouraged,” he said, and “given to understand any attempt would be futile and pointless.”
Instead, he filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in which he claimed to have suffered adverse treatment because he didn’t qualify for the SEIB top-up at the time his child was born and his wife was required to leave her job when the baby arrived. It cost his family in wages and work experience, he said, as his wife had a temporary acting senior management position at the time.
“Mr. Angus submits the Union and the City have shown their guilt by acting swiftly to amend the collective agreement once he brought his Complaint to the Tribunal,” the complaint reads. The union said there was no basis for Mr. Angus’s allegation that CUPE Local 50 and the City dragged their heels. The allegation that he could have been entitled to the top-up if he was in a same-sex relationship is “speculative and ignores the advice of the union,” the union’s reply reads.
It’s irrelevant that Mr. Angus was not actually denied the SEIB top-up, tribunal member Robert Blasina wrote in his decision, released May 1. It’s the policy itself that could possibly be considered discriminatory.
The tribunal denied the city and union’s applications to dismiss the complaint, and instead encouraged both parties to accept mediation.
Mr. Angus was not available for comment Wednesday.