The human right for McDonald's employees not to wash their hands

[Melanie_]

They should just keep that person on toilet and table scrubbing duty.

Yeah, that should be really good for her skin condition.

[noahbody]

The HR tribunal did not necessarily rule that she didn't have to wash her hands when handling food. What they are claiming is that McDonald's didn't make the effort to try to find alternate work for her to do at the restaurant. (i.e. if she couldn't wash her hands enough to qualify her to handle the food, she should (in theory) be allowed to work the drive-through or do some other work at the restaurant.

The sensible thing would have been to put her in a Grimace costume.

[Peter F]

This is unbelievable, words escape me, how could they rule such a thing when customer's health can be at stake. Another reason these HR tribunals are out to lunch.

http://ezralevant.com/2008/04/the-human-ri...-mcdonalds.html

The human right for McDonald's employees not to wash their hands

...

That's because the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that one of the employees there has a human right not to wash her hands when working in their kitchen.

...etc...

Whats to be said?

It is not surprising to me that Mr.Levant could read the BCHRC decision (he must have because he provided the link to the decision) and then spout off that it means Restraunt employees have a human right to not wash thier hands.

Mr Levant is an obvious Liar. And Scribblet should be ashamed for trotting out such bullshit as an accurate representation of what happened.

[Qwerty]

Whats to be said?

It is not surprising to me that Mr.Levant could read the BCHRC decision (he must have because he provided the link to the decision) and then spout off that it means Restraunt employees have a human right to not wash thier hands.

Mr Levant is an obvious Liar. And Scribblet should be ashamed for trotting out such bullshit as an accurate representation of what happened.

Yes anything not coming from the left wing is obvious a lie, what were you thinking.

[guyser]

Yes anything not coming from the left wing is obvious a lie, what were you thinking.

See...now you are talking the truth.

Please dont come back with "Mark Steyn" is being sued by the HRC too !......

[Canadian Blue]

BTW fyi Turkey is hardly secular. What's on their flag? They have a Islamic democracy, that's what they call it. It's an oxymoron if you ask me but w/e.

Do you honestly just go by what is on their flag??? By that logic we can assume that Lybia is controlled by the Green Party.

Turkey is considered an example of a successful secular democracy in the Middle East by most observers.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Peter F]

Yes anything not coming from the left wing is obvious a lie, what were you thinking.

No, Qwerty, what Levant says is a Lie. Read the report. The report doesn't conclude anything Levant says it doe's. He's lying. Its obvious.

Edit to add:

from Levants website (see OP for link) referring to scribbletts quote:

italics mine

Addendum: Some commenters suggest that I am downplaying Datt's problem. I'm not. If she really did have a skin condition that stopped her from washing her hands, there are other remedies out there for her, from workers compensation to long term disability insurance, to switching jobs within McDonald's, or going elsewhere.

Levant is Lying through his teeth!.

Why people pay attention to what this bullshit artist say's I'll never know...

Edited April 17, 2008 by Peter F

[scribblet]

After reading more about it and this http://hrheroblogs.com/northernexposure/20...accommodations/

I still believe the HR tribunal was wrong:

from the above:

There was no evidence of:

* the relationship between food contamination and hand-washing;

* the risk to the public if Ms. Datt’s hand-washing was limited; and

* other employees being adversely affected by Ms. Datt’s limitations.[/unquote] really

[Argus]

You do realize this is a discussion forum right? Why don't you explain why a Muslim country like Turkey has been able to be successful and secular?

It's called the cult of Ataturk, wherin anyone who strayed from the secularism he preached was locked up and/or killed. However, as the cult fades in strength Turkey is becoming more and more Islamist, and unless the military reigns them in I expect an Islamist government in Turkey - and no more elections - within ten years or so.

[Peter F]

After reading more about it and this http://hrheroblogs.com/northernexposure/20...accommodations/

I still believe the HR tribunal was wrong:

from the above:

There was no evidence of:

* the relationship between food contamination and hand-washing;

* the risk to the public if Ms. Datt’s hand-washing was limited; and

* other employees being adversely affected by Ms. Datt’s limitations.[/unquote] really

Thats the Levant bullshit line. The case found no evidence whatsoever that the employer made any attempt to slot the complainant into a position that would suit her condition. McDonalds made no attempt whatsoever to investigate what they could to to accomodate the complainant. Nothing! Nada! Zilch!. They sacked her because she could not return to her old job. She had been a swing-manager for 10 years (without compensation for it, I might add) and had worked there for 23 years and every single performance appraisal she had said she was a model employee.

Did Management consider giving her some managerial training? Nope. Rejected without reason and sacked.

Did Management consider looking into her wearing gloves - wich would reduce the frequency of hand washing? Nope. Not any effort at all.

Did Management consider putting her on the Cash window where frequency of hand washing would be reduced? Nope. None.

and because Management made no effort at all to even attempt to accomodate the complainant - let alone getting anywhere near unreasonable hardship - the HRC determined McDonalds failed in its legal duty to accomodate.

Nowhere - Nowhere does the HRC say employee's have no requirement to wash thier hands.

But Mr Levant - after reading the decision itself says

he British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that one of the employees there has a human right not to wash her hands when working in their kitchen.

A fabrication to say the least.

Mr Levant says:

Datt wouldn't wash her hands. She just wouldn't -- she said she couldn't.

That is an outright lie.

Mr Levant says:

in B.C. a food preparation worker's self-respect trumps a company's commitment to cleanliness.

The BCHRC never once - not once suggested that the complainant or employees at restaurants need not wash their hands. For Levant to suggest such is a blatant lie. But he suggests it - so do you for that matter.

Here's another lie:

The $50,000+ penalty -- plus several years of legal fees and medical and rehab experts -- isn't the worst of it. Inventing a "human right" for a worker to go to the bathroom and then to handle meat without washing her hands in between, as an excuse for that $50,000 shakedown isn't the worst of it either.

The HRC never said that - or even anying remotely like it. He Lies!

Read the decision and the reasons for the award. You will see that Levant is not telling the truth.

and here's probably the biggest whopper of them all:

Beena Datt and her filthy hands are gone. But the restaurant has been ordered not to enforce its hand washing policy in any future cases like Datt's.

What a load horseshit.

[segnosaur]

They should just keep that person on toilet and table scrubbing duty.

McDonalds' Canada cannot seriously expect to have this person handling Canadians' food can they?

Uhhh... no, they weren't expecting them to handle food.

And the problem with putting them on 'toilet and table scrubbing' duty? I rather expect that even in a busy McDonalds, there is probably limited work for someone who is only able to do janitorial stuff along those lines. (That work is probably done by people who split their time between working in the kitchen and doing the cleaning, at least in the cases I've heard of.) So, you'd have an employee who could only do one of the several tasks, and wouldn't have enough work to keep her busy full time.

[segnosaur]

Thats the Levant bullshit line. The case found no evidence whatsoever that the employer made any attempt to slot the complainant into a position that would suit her condition.

Ok, I think the main point in your response is "the case found...". That should actually read "The human rights tribunal found that...". The problem is McDonald's could have looked into possibilities and rejected them as impractical, and the tribunal still may have said they "didn't do enough".

Did Management consider giving her some managerial training? Nope. Rejected without reason and sacked.

I know someone who manages a McDonald's. Being in management does not eliminate the need for hand washing, as managers often end up helping in the kitchen, etc. during busy times or when the restaurant is short staffed. (Note: this may or may not be the case at that restaurant, but it is the case with my friend.)

Did Management consider looking into her wearing gloves - wich would reduce the frequency of hand washing? Nope. Not any effort at all.

Not sure why they didn't consider her wearing gloves, but one of the possible reasons is that simply wearing gloves alone may not be effective....

http://www.hospitalinfection.org/protectyourself.shtml#text1 (granted, this reference is related to hospitals, where they're even more picky about infections than at McDonald's, but it still illustrates the point.)

Of course, depending on the type of gloves, you also have to contend with things like Latex allergies.

Edited to add:

I just took a closer look at the reference provided... looks like gloves were tried, but they did not solve the problem.

Did Management consider putting her on the Cash window where frequency of hand washing would be reduced? Nope. None.

Again, we may not know McDonald's side of things. As I mentioned in other posts, having one person who's limited to what they can do (cash window only) may be impractical. Or, its possible that they want their handwashing policy to be universal (after all, you may not be handling raw food at the cash window, but you're still dealing directly with customers.) I'd rather the person who hands me my change and my McShake at the drive through have clean hands, even if they didn't prepare the big mac themselves.

So, as I said before, even though Ezra Lavant may have misrepresented this case, I still believe that the Human rights commission was wrong.

Edited April 17, 2008 by segnosaur

[M.Dancer]

You would have thought the appropriate venue for this kind of case would be the labour board.

I wonder why not?

[madmax]

Employees can wash their hands all they want at Mcdonalds.

But I won't go there. It isn't healthy to begin with.

Edited April 17, 2008 by madmax

[madmax]

Ok, I just read the link provided on the ruling found in Ezras article.

I think this is excellent reading for anyone who likes a good story, and I think Ezras readers read him and not the link.

This is a fun read, if you like this kind of stuff. It is very long, and while I was wound up by Scribblets posting, that such a thing could happen, reading the ruling puts me back at ease (sleep). I need not worry about Ronald, and the Hamburgler.

Perhaps this is just a matter of the scales of justice.

http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2007/pdf/...7_BCHRT_324.pdf

Edited April 17, 2008 by madmax

[madmax]

and here's probably the biggest whopper of them all:

What a load horseshit.

Yes I feel I was played by the headline and the article. There was no need to fabricate such a wild story, invalid conclusions or embellish a falsehood. Such a good writer should have been able to find a better story and better facts.

I don't think it's horsesh*T but

toro kaka.

[mikedavid00]

Beena Datt

Wow. Another Sikh using our human rights commission.

There's a suprise.

[Peter F]

Wow. Another Sikh using our human rights commission.

There's a suprise.

The law shouldn't apply to Sikhs?

[mikedavid00]

The law shouldn't apply to Sikhs?

I was just pointing out how muslims and sikh's have an unusually large participation rate with our human rights commission to promote their political agenda.

Yes sikh's we know. You are oppressed in India, and now you are oppressed in Canada. And france, and the uk etc etc.

You are a minorty of oppressed people. Look at you! look at you!

Would you like us to throw you another cookie now or later.

[Peter F]

I was just pointing out how muslims and sikh's have an unusually large participation rate with our human rights commission to promote their political agenda.

Yes...that may have something to do with Human Rights.

[madmax]

I was just pointing out how muslims and sikh's have an unusually large participation rate with our human rights commission to promote their political agenda.

I don't care what her origin. McDonalds blew this one legitimately. 77 Pages of reading, McDonalds rolled the dice and lost. Infact you have to wonder why they didn't take a more reasonable route then let it come to this where they lost outright. Clearly as you progress through a case you can see that you are going to be TOAST!

If $23,000 for lost wages after 20 years of service is a political agenda, then it will be one that all people who are treated in a similar manner will benefit from.

McDonalds Blew it.

I usually roll my eyes, when I see those "Hot Coffee" lawsuits, or not enough ketchup on the cheeseburger, or a french fry choked me, or the Hamburgaler looks like an ethnic hook nose or promotes theft to our young kids.

But this case was going to become a no brainer and the Lawyers representing McDonalds must have gave them some horrible advice.

Regardless, it is a pitance of money in the grand scheme for McDees.

[segnosaur]

I don't care what her origin. McDonalds blew this one legitimately. 77 Pages of reading, McDonalds rolled the dice and lost. Infact you have to wonder why they didn't take a more reasonable route then let it come to this where they lost outright. Clearly as you progress through a case you can see that you are going to be TOAST!

Wait a second....

While the reference to the case was rather informative, it was still written and hosted by the BC Human rights tribunal. Given those circumstances, do you really think you're getting an unbiased view of what really happened and/or McDonald's side of the story? (After all, you wouldn't expect the human right's tribunal to write something like "We thought McDonald's had a good point, but we don't like big companies so we're going to find for the plaintiff", even if that is what happened.

Look through the document... how many times to they say "Ms. Datt (the plaintiff) thought that...". Ms. Datt claims that the restaurant is a high volume restaurant (even if she wouldn't necessarily have access to sales figures for various restaurants). Ms. Datt claimed she could work the drive through or act as hostess, even though it conflicted with the practices at McDonalds.

So, tell me, what more could McDonalds have done? Let her work the drive through? Point [15] in their findings points out that people working drive through are expected to help prepare food during idle times. (They may not have to wash their hands as often, but then management would be left with a person who could only do one task at the restaurant rather than multiple.) Train her to be a manager? The manager is expected to fill in for people on breaks, which again requires and washing. Get her to be a hostess? They have the same hand washing requirements as every one else [9]. Use gloves? Remember, they were tried and didn't work well.

The only way McDonald's could have acommodated her is to limit her to only one or 2 tasks, but then they end up with an employee who is less useful than one who can do all tasks, and for which the restaurant would have to schedule around (e.g. they could not put her on duty during 'quiet' times because she may end up having to prepare food.)

If $23,000 for lost wages after 20 years of service is a political agenda...

You described it perfectly... it is a political agenda, and has nothing to do with 'justice' or 'human rights'. Therefore, this should have been handled as an issue in an election.

...then it will be one that all people who are treated in a similar manner will benefit from.

But the issue is, are they benefiting justly from the issue.

McDonalds Blew it.

No, they lost. They may have been 100% in the right. But, they were forced to present their case to people who are likely have no experience running a restaurant, and who may have had a political agenda for ruling against them.

[Peter F]

Wait a second....

They may have been 100% in the right. But, they were forced to present their case to people who are likely have no experience running a restaurant, and who may have had a political agenda for ruling against them.

And a court room would have been different? One needs experience in a restraunt to be a Judge? Or a Jury member? A HRC commissioner "may" nurse a political agenda but Judges and juries certainly don't? Rule of law and precedence didn't apply? Gimme a break.

As for MacDonalds being "forced to present thier case": They weren't and presented no case at all. That's with Lawyers! If they were 100% right it may have been a good idea to actually show why that is...but no they sat on thier hands and hoped Great West Life and somebody in HR would take care of it. The complete lack of any effort at all on McDs part showed callous indifference to the complainants plight - and their legal duty to accomodate, no less - and the complainant rightfully won compensation for it.

Looks good on her and good on McDonalds too.

[segnosaur]

And a court room would have been different? One needs experience in a restraunt to be a Judge? Or a Jury member?

It would certainly be an asset in this case.

After all, the whole issue is one of "Did McDonald's do enough to get around her hand washing problem". If they actually had to work at McDonald's and see just what is required for health reasons, they may understand that any ideas that they have for alternatives would not work.

A HRC commissioner "may" nurse a political agenda but Judges and juries certainly don't? Rule of law and precedence didn't apply? Gimme a break.

I rather suspect that most Judges have a better grounding in the law than your average HRC commisioner. You know, usually requiring a law degree and all. Do a google search for "appointment human rights commission". You'll find all sorts of people appointed who are former teachers, mayors, social service workers, etc. Haven't found too many that were former lawyers or with experience in the law.

As for Juries... typically, they aren't used for civil trials in Canada. But when they are, the defense (in this case McDonalds) has the opportunity to reject certain potential members to try to ensure the jury is unbiased. They get no such opportunity with the Human Rights commissions.

By the way, if you look at the BC Human rights Commission, you'll see a section where people have appealed their rulings. While many appeals have failed, many have also been successful, meaning the rulings by the Human right's commisions were overruled by people more familiar with the law.

Not that I expect the courts to be perfect. As the McDonald's hot coffee case demonstrates, even Judges/Juries make bade decisions. Could be that a Judge might have made the same ruling. But then, a bad decision is a bad decision, whether its by a Judge or HRC. (Its just that I expect the judge to make fewer bad rulings.)

As for MacDonalds being "forced to present thier case": They weren't and presented no case at all. That's with Lawyers!

Uhhhh.... no. they actually did 'present a case'. Says right in the judgement: Bradley McTeer and Sandy Basi, who are both Operations Consultants with McDonald’s and Robert Roy Webber, a Rehabilitation Consultant retained by Great-West Life Assurance Company (“GWL”) gave evidence on behalf of McDonald’s. They also submitted medical testimonial.

You can see some of the evidence and testimony offered by McDonald's in various sections. I'd recommend looking at: 9, 11, 12, 19 (re: drive through), 110 (re: hand washing applied to all employees), 116 (re: hand washing and gloves), 128 (attempts by McDonald's to find other work for the plaintiff), 130 (re: the opportunity of the plaintiff to bring alternate information), 134 (regarding how modified positions were not suitable). 137-139 (re: other efforts to find positions).

So, according to the Human rights tribunal:

- They did try to find her a non-food based job at McDonald's, but none were available

- Any of the suggestions for alternative work at the restaurant would still cause problems due to hand washing

- The plaintiff did meet with McDonald's management and had opportunity to present new medical evidence

Looks like they did put up a good case. They pointed to their efforts to find alternative work, and pointed to problems with any potential options. Exactly what they needed to do.

[guyser]

I usually roll my eyes, when I see those "Hot Coffee" lawsuits,

But this case was going to become a no brainer and the Lawyers representing McDonalds must have gave them some horrible advice.

Regardless, it is a pitance of money in the grand scheme for McDees.

Between this and the coffee lawsuit , the only certainty should be McD's hiring new lawyers. They blew this one and most definitely blew the coffee lawsuit.

To whomever gave the accurate synopsis...thank you. (Peter or was it madmax)