A local man fired by a Burnaby company for refusing to work away from his wife and infant daughter for more than two months straight has fought off an attempt to have his complaint to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal dismissed.
Brian Suen, a former project manager with Burnaby-based Envirocon Environmental Services, was fired on Jan. 26, 2016 after he refused an assignment that would have required him to be in Manitoba for eight to 10 weeks straight, unless he flew home at his own expense on weekends.
He filed a human rights complaint against Envirocon on July 26, 2016, alleging the company had discriminated against him based on his family status.
Envirocon applied to have the complaint dismissed, but that application was denied by tribunal member Emily Ohler in a decision this month.
Suen became a father on Sept. 5, 2015, three years into his employment with Envirocon, according to Ohler’s Oct. 19 ruling.
In mid- to late-January, he was assigned to a project in Manitoba after a project manager at a site there resigned unexpectedly.
On Jan. 25, 2015, Suen told Envirocon he would not be going to Manitoba in consideration of his wife and four-month-old baby.
“Mr. Suen says that the Manitoba project was presented to him as a unilateral direction which contrasted to his previous out-of-town assignments which had always been negotiated arrangements,” Ohler said. “He had also never been presented with an assignment such as this which was both long‐term and had no prospect for a company‐paid return to Vancouver during the assignment term.”
He was fired the next day.
Envirocon said it was relying on its management rights and acting in accordance with the terms and conditions of Mr. Suen’s contract.
Among its arguments for why his complaint should be dismissed, Envirocon said Suen’s daughter had no special or unique physical or mental or medical needs, his wife was the primary caregiver for their child and on a maternity leave, and the family had ample support and resources to provide additional care for his child.
Envirocon further argued Suen did not have “any special skill or ability which renders him indispensable in the care of his daughter.”
Ohler took exception to that line of reasoning.
“…Remembering that this case deals not with inconvenient shifts but with complete physical absence for an extended time period from a spouse and four-month-old infant, Envirocon’s assertion that Mr. Suen has ‘no special skill or ability’ to make him indispensable in caring for his daughter so minimizes the role of a father in a child’s care as to run counter to the purposes of the (B.C. Human Rights) Code,” Ohler said. “In the specific circumstances of this case, this argument could serve to reinforce ideas that fathers are ancillary to their children’s lives; that the brunt of child care belongs to mothers; and that a coupled parent’s obligations are solely the most basic needs of a child with no regard to the co-parenting spouse or a more fulsome recognition of what parenting means in the life and development of a child.”
Ohler said she rejected such notions “vehemently.”
In denying Envirocon’s application, Ohler noted she made no findings of fact, but only recited the submission of both parties relevant to her decision.
Envirocon has until Dec. 18 to apply to the B.C. Supreme Court for a judicial review of Ohler’s decision.
