ÿWPCÝ  èUÃ~0ãfEwczܳ7CÀ‚4ün[$èÅH¡´ø¬h[Ý´²Ö“¢¢Øü4Sî «[Mc>‰ –…žÍê£n ¨ï;8„å΋Kä6bû8Sºú`zv0¥³î¿K/Á*¨ô+Ô ÆÀA4ã<”Ñ<þmÊ©¶dx"êƒÂ®øʺ„§ôýbüMûƒ#ìÄÏNF[ð0j ¿?¦ü[kŸô¹³£kñpŽf]å­”§]'Œ×‰÷XÿA¡óJHÄüƒï;ViÌ ª¦Š|xçwþÖh7ÝWJ)êÛ\µ'wˆè[ùfX½KØÏI'ô]ĺßqr·êüö@§˜÷ÒÏu ¼µ?Ÿ4b l: žå*†‹ƒVÊNÕô¨ÉÚPõ蛼ÕsŽVe ¢DÜ#“/R}âÒ:_Ò+­\;"™NS¬Æçó9B8*6¢V 0nø 0Yf 0_¿ 0i‡ 0Æ—#Á]UN %l Mr (v Nž ^   w¬ 4° Ä mÆ ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' E "Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   <ÿÿ:Default ParaÔ€ôôôÔÔ€XXXÔ6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ#|x(žuÉ$¡¡ÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ X¶ñXX XÔÔ€X¶ñXX X¶ñÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Xœnô* Äpì*´ëÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒuÉ!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ X»‰XX XÔÔ€X»‰XX X»‰ÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔBhinderÔ_Ô€v.€Canadaóó€Ð |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€208/1986Ð H˜ ÐÌ9€November€1989Ð  d ÐÐ ÐÌVIEWSó óÐ Æ   ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€by:óó€Ô_ÔKarnelÔ_Ô€Singh€Ô_ÔBhinderÔ_ÔÐ xÈ  ÐÌòòAlleged€victim:óó€The€authorÐ D”  ÐÌòòState€party€concerned:óó€CanadaÐ ` ÐÌòòDate€of€communication:óó€9€June€1986Ð Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€decision€On€admissibility:óó€25€October€1988óóÐ ¨ø ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committee€óóestablished€under€article€28€of€the€International€Covenant€onÐ Zª ÐCivil€and€Political€Rights,Ð @ ÐÌòòMeeting€óóon€9€November€1989,Ð  \ ÐÌòòHaving€concluded€óóits€consideration€of€communication€No.€208/1986,€submitted€to€theÐ Ø( ÐCommittee€by€Mr.€Ô_ÔKarnelÔ_Ô€Singh€Ô_ÔBhinderÔ_Ô€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€InternationalÐ ¾ ÐCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð ¤ô ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€account€óóall€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ p!À  Ðcommunication€and€by€the€State€party,Ð V"¦! ÐÌòòAdopts€óóthe€following:Ð "$r# ÐÓKÓÌÌòòÓ  Óò òViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€Of€the€Optional€Protocoló óóóÐ Ô&$"& ÐÓzÓÌÌÓ  Ó1.€The€author€of€the€communication,€dated€9€June€1986,€is€Ô_ÔKarnelÔ_Ô€Singh€Ô_ÔBhinderÔ_Ô,€aÐ †)Ö$) Ðnaturalized€Canadian€citizen€who€was€born€in€India€in€1942€and€emigrated€to€Canada€inÐ l*¼%* Ð1974.€He€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€a€violation€by€Canada€of€article€18€of€the€InternationalÐ R+¢&+ ÐCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€A€Sikh€by€religion,€he€wears€a€turban€in€his€daily€lifeÐ 8,ˆ', Ðand€refuses€to€wear€safety€headgear€during€his€work.€This€resulted€in€the€termination€of€hisÐ -n(- ÐÔ_ÔlabourÔ_Ô€contract.Ð ° ÐÌòòThe€facts€as€submittedóóÐ |Ì ÐÌ2.1€In€April€1974,€the€author€was€employed€by€the€Canadian€National€Railway€CompanyÐ H˜ Ð(CNR)€as€a€maintenance€electrician€on€the€night€shift€at€the€Toronto€coach€yard.Ð . ~ ÐÌ2.2€CNR€is€a€Crown€Corporation;€its€shares€are€owned€by€the€Crown€and€it€is€accountableÐ ú J Ðto€the€Canadian€Parliament€for€the€conduct€of€its€affairs.Ð à 0 ÐÌ2.3€With€effect€of€1€December€1978,€the€company€decreed€that€the€Toronto€coach€yardÐ ¬ ü  Ðwould€be€a€"hard€hat€area"€in€which€all€employees€were€required€to€wear€safety€headgear.Ð ’â  ÐÌ2.4€At€the€time,€the€relevant€Canadian€legislation€in€this€matter€read€as€follows:Ð ^®  ÐÌ(a)€Canada€Ô_ÔLabourÔ_Ô€Code,€Chapter€L„l,€Section€81,€subsection€(2):€Ð *z  ÐÌEvery€person€operating€or€carrying€on€a€federal€work,€undertaking€or€business€shall€adoptÐ öF Ðand€carry€out€reasonable€procedures€and€techniques€designed€or€intended€to€prevent€orÐ Ü, Ðreduce€the€risk€of€employment€injury€(...).Ð Â ÐÌ(b)€Section€82:Ð ŽÞ ÐÌEvery€person€employed€upon€or€in€connection€with€the€operation€of€any€federal€work,Ð Zª Ðundertaking€or€business€shall,€in€the€course€of€his€employment,Ð @ ÐÌ(a)€take€all€reasonable€and€necessary€precautions€to€ensure€his€own€safety€and€the€safety€ofÐ  \ Ðhis€fellow€employees;€andÐ òB ÐÌ(b)€at€all€appropriate€times€use€such€devices€and€wear€such€articles€of€clothing€or€equipmentÐ ¾ Ðas€are€intended€for€his€protection€and€furnished€to€him€by€his€employer,€or€required€pursuantÐ ¤ô Ðto€this€Part€to€be€used€or€worn€by€him.Ð Š Ú ÐÌ(c)€Section€83,€subsection€(1):Ð V"¦! ÐÌThe€fact€that€an€employer€or€employee€has€complied€with€or€failed€to€comply€with€any€ofÐ "$r# Ðthe€provisions€of€this€Part€or€the€regulations€shall€not€be€construed€to€affect€any€right€of€anÐ %X $ Ðemployee€to€compensation€under€any€statute€relating€to€compensation€for€employmentÐ î%>!% Ðinjury,€or€to€affect€any€liability€or€obligation€of€any€employer€or€employee€under€any€suchÐ Ô&$"& Ðstatute.Ð º' #' ÐÌ(d)€Chapter€1007€(Canada€Protective€Clothing€and€Equipment€Regulations),€Section€3:Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌWhereÐ R+¢&+ ÐÌ(a)€it€is€not€reasonably€practicable€to€eliminate€an€employment€danger€or€to€control€theÐ -n(- Ðdanger€within€safe€limits;€andÐ ° ÐÌ(b)€the€wearing€or€use€by€an€employee€of€personal€protective€equipment€will€prevent€anÐ |Ì Ðinjury€or€significantly€lessen€the€severity€of€an€injury,€every€employer€shall€ensure€that€eachÐ b² Ðemployee€who€is€exposed€to€that€danger€wears€or€uses€that€equipment€(...).Ð H˜ ÐÌ(e)€Chapter€1007,€Section€S,€subsection€(1):Ð  d ÐÌNo€employee€shall€commence€a€work€assignment€or€enter€a€work€area€where€any€kind€ofÐ à 0 Ðpersonal€protective€equipment€is€required€by€these€Regulations€to€be€worn€or€used€unlessÐ Æ   ÐÌ(a)€he€is€wearing€or€using€that€kind€of€personal€protective€equipment€in€the€mannerÐ ’â  Ðprescribed€in€these€Regulations€(...).Ð xÈ  ÐÌ(f)€Chapter€998€(Canada€Electrical€Safety€Regulations),€Section€17:Ð D”  ÐÌNo€employer€shall€permit€an€employee€to€work,€and€no€employee€shall€work,€on€an€electricalÐ ` ÐfacilityÐ öF ÐÌ(a)€that€has€not€more€than€250€volts€(...),€where€there€is€a€possibility€of€a€dangerous€electricÐ Â Ðshock,€orÐ ¨ø ÐÌ(b)€that€has€more€than€250€volts,€but€not€more€than€5.200€volts€(...),€or€not€more€than€3.000Ð tÄ Ðvolts€(...).Ð Zª ÐÌunless€that€employee€uses€such€insulated€protective€clothing€and€equipment€as€is€necessary,Ð &v Ðin€accordance€with€good€electrical€safety€practice€or€as€required€by€a€safety€officer,€to€protectÐ  \ Ðhim€from€injury€during€the€performance€of€the€work.Ð òB ÐÌ(g)€Section€18:Ð ¾ ÐÌNo€employer€shall€permit€an€employee€to€work,€and€no€employee€shall€work,€on€an€electricalÐ Š Ú Ðfacility€that,€in€accordance€with€good€electrical€safety€practice,€requires€protective€Ô_ÔheadwearÔ_ÔÐ p!À  Ðto€be€worn€unless€he€is€wearing€protective€Ô_ÔheadwearÔ_Ô€(...).Ð V"¦! ÐÌ2.5€During€the€five€years€prior€to€the€introduction€of€the€hard€hat€requirement,€20€headÐ "$r# Ðinjuries€were€sustained€among€the€Toronto€coach€yard's€workforce€of€487,€52€of€whom€wereÐ %X $ Ðemployed€as€electricians.Ð î%>!% ÐÌ2.6€The€author's€work€consisted€of€the€nightly€inspection€of€the€undercarriage€of€trains€fromÐ º' #' Ða€pit€located€between€the€rails,€as€well€as€maintenance€work€inside€and€outside€the€train,€i.e.Ð  (ð#( Ðon€the€engine.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ2.7€Since€it€is€a€fundamental€tenet€of€Sikh€religion€that€men's€Ô_ÔheadwearÔ_Ô€should€consistÐ R+¢&+ Ðexclusively€of€a€turban,€the€author€refused€to€comply€with€the€new€hard€hat€regulations.€HeÐ 8,ˆ', Ðalso€refused€a€transfer€to€any€other€post.€His€employment€was€consequently€terminated€byÐ -n(- Ðthe€CNR€on€6€December€1978.Ð ° ÐÌ2.8€On€7€December€1978,€the€author€filed€a€complaint€with€the€Canadian€Human€RightsÐ |Ì ÐCommission,€alleging€that€the€CNR€had€discriminated€against€him€on€the€basis€of€hisÐ b² Ðreligion.€In€its€decision€of€31€August€1981,€a€Human€Rights€Tribunal€appointed€pursuant€toÐ H˜ Ðthe€Canadian€Human€Rights€Act€made€òòinter€alia€óóthe€following€findings:Ð . ~ ÐÌ(a)€"there€is€no€evidence€that€other€employees€or€the€public€will€be€affected€if€Mr.€Ô_ÔBhinderÔ_ÔÐ ú J Ðwere€to€continue€working€without€a€hard€hat"€(paragraph€5167);Ð à 0 ÐÌ(b)€"(...)€(the€author)€will€be€in€greater€danger€if€he€does€not€conform€with€the€hard€hatÐ ¬ ü  Ðpolicy.€There€is€no€doubt€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔBhinderÔ_Ô's€turban€is€inferior€to€a€hard€hat€in€its€capacity€toÐ ’â  Ðprotect€against€impact€and€electrical€shock€(...)€There€is€a€real€increase€in€risk€if€Mr.€Ô_ÔBhinderÔ_ÔÐ xÈ  Ðdoes€not€wear€his€hard€hat,€even€though€that€increase€in€risk€may€be€very€small€(paragraphÐ ^®  Ð5177);Ð D”  ÐÌ(c)€"(...)€(CNR)€pays€compensation€directly€to€its€injured€employees,€and€as€such,€if€anÐ ` Ðemployee's€risk€of€injury€is€increased,€the€likelihood€of€receiving€compensationÐ öF Ðcorrespondingly€increases,€and€as€a€result€the€employer's€liability€to€pay€compensationÐ Ü, Ðconsequentially€increases"€(paragraph€5332€(37)).Ð Â ÐÌ2.9€In€respect€of€the€application€of€the€hard€hat€rule€to€Mr.€Ô_ÔBhinderÔ_Ô,€the€Tribunal€found€aÐ ŽÞ ÐÔ_ÔvlolationÔ_Ô€of€the€Canadian€Human€Rights€Act€on€the€grounds€that€the€hard€hat€regulation€"hasÐ tÄ Ðthe€effect€of€denying€a€Ô_ÔpractisingÔ_Ô€Sikh€...€employment€with€the€Respondent€because€of€theÐ Zª ÐComplainant's€religion"€(paragraph€5332€(3)).€This€finding€was€based€on€the€followingÐ @ Ðconsiderations:Ð &v ÐÌ(a)€An€employment€policy€may€be€discriminatory€within€the€terms€of€the€Canadian€HumanÐ òB ÐRights€Act,€even€if€the€employer€has€no€intention€to€discriminate€(paragraph€5332€(3)).Ð Ø( ÐÌ(b)€implicit€in€the€defense€of€òòbona€fide€óóoccupational€requirement€in€the€Canadian€HumanÐ ¤ô ÐRights€Act€is€the€requirement€that€employers€make€such€accommodation€to€the€religiousÐ Š Ú Ðbeliefs€of€their€employees€as€will€not€cause€them€undue€hardship€(paragraph€5332€(29„32)).Ð p!À  ÐÌ2.10€The€Tribunal€acknowledged€that€the€"implications€of€an€exemption€made€for€Mr.Ð <#Œ" ÐÔ_ÔBhinderÔ_Ô€is€that€all€Sikhs€are€exempt€from€hard€hat€regulations€in€all€industries€to€which€theÐ "$r# ÐHuman€Rights€Act€applies€(...)",€and€that€"the€effect€may€be€an€increase€in€the€overallÐ %X $ Ðaccident€rate€in€the€affected€industries€for€the€purpose€of€workers'€compensation"€(paragraphÐ î%>!% Ð5332€(36)).€It€held,€however,€that€such€added€risk€was€to€be€regarded€as€inherent€to€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðemployment€and€consequently€to€be€borne€by€the€employer€(paragraph€5332€(38)).Ð º' #' ÐÌ2.11€The€CNR€appealed€and€on€13€April€1983€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðdecision€of€the€Human€Rights€Tribunal€on€the€grounds€that€the€Canadian€Human€RightsÐ l*¼%* ÐCharter€prohibited€only€direct€and€intentional€discrimination€and€that€it€did€not€encompassÐ R+¢&+ Ðthe€concept€of€reasonable€accommodation.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð2.12€The€author's€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€was€dismissed€on€17€DecemberÐ ° Ð1985.€Although€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€also€unintentional€or€indirect€discriminationÐ –æ Ðwas€prohibited€by€the€Canadian€Human€Rights€Act,€it€concluded€that€the€policy€of€the€CNRÐ |Ì Ðwas€reasonable€and€based€on€safety€considerations,€and€therefore€constituted€a€òòbona€fideÐ b² Ðóóoccupational€requirement.€The€Court€also€denied€a€duty€of€the€employer€to€"reasonableÐ H˜ Ðaccommodation"€under€the€Act.Ð . ~ ÐÌòòThe€complaintóóÐ ú J ÐÌ3.€The€author€claims€that€his€right€to€manifest€his€religious€beliefs€under€article€18,Ð Æ   Ðparagraph€1,€of€the€Covenant€has€been€restricted€by€virtue€of€the€enforcement€of€the€hard€hatÐ ¬ ü  Ðregulations,€and€that€this€limitation€does€not€meet€the€requirements€of€article€18,€paragraphÐ ’â  Ð3.€In€particular,€he€'argues€that€the€limitation€was€not€necessary€to€protect€public€safety,€sinceÐ xÈ  Ðany€safety€risk€ensuing€from€his€refusal€to€wear€safety€headgear€was€confined€to€himself.Ð ^®  ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€comments€and€ObservationóóÐ *z  ÐÌ4.1€The€State€party€submits€that€the€author€was€not€discharged€from€his€employment€becauseÐ öF Ðof€his€religion€as€such€hut€rather€because€of€his€refusal€to€wear€a€hard€hat,€and€contends€thatÐ Ü, Ða€neutral€legal€requirement,€imposed€for€legitimate€reasons€and€applied€to€all€members€ofÐ Â Ðthe€relevant€work€force€without€aiming€at€any€religious€group,€cannot€violate€the€rightÐ ¨ø Ðdefined€in€article€18,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant.€In€this€respect,€it€refers€to€the€HumanÐ ŽÞ ÐRights€Committee's€decision€in€communication€No.€185/1984€(Ô_ÔL.T.K.v.Ô_Ô€Finland),€where€theÐ tÄ ÐCommittee€observed,€that€"(...)€(the€author)€was€not€prosecuted€and€sentenced€because€of€hisÐ Zª Ðbeliefs€or€opinions€as€such,€but€because€he€refused€to€perform€military€service".Ð @ ÐÌ4.2€The€State€party€also€invokes€its€obligation€under€article€7,€paragraph€(b),€of€theÐ  \ ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Economic,€Social€and€Cultural€Rights,€to€ensure€"safe€and€healthyÐ òB Ðworking€conditions",€and€claims€that€the€interpretation€of€article€18€of€the€Covenant€shouldÐ Ø( Ðnot€interfere€with€the€implementation€of€the€Ô_ÔICESCRÔ_Ô€through€uniformly€applied€safetyÐ ¾ Ðrequirements.Ð ¤ô ÐÌ4.3€The€State€party€argues€that€it€was€open€to€the€author€to€avoid€the€operation€of€the€hardÐ p!À  Ðhat€requirement€by€seeking€other€employment,€and€refers€to€a€decision€of€the€EuropeanÐ V"¦! ÐCommission€of€Human€Rights€(Ahmad€v.€UK,€[1982]€4€Ô_ÔE.H.R.R.Ô_Ô€126,€paragraphs€11,€13)Ð <#Œ" Ðwhich,€in€assessing€the€scope€of€the€freedom€of€religion€as€guaranteed€by€article€9€of€theÐ "$r# ÐEuropean€Convention€for€the€Protection€of€Human€Rights€and€Fundamental€Freedoms,€hadÐ %X $ Ðobserved€that€„€in€addition€to€the€limitations€contained€in€that€article€„€special€contractualÐ î%>!% Ðobligations€could€influence€the€exercise€of€the€right€to€freedom€of€religion,€and€that€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðapplicant€remained€free€to€resign€from€his€employment€if€he€considered€it€to€be€incompatibleÐ º' #' Ðwith€his€religious€duties.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ4.4€In€the€State€party's€opinion,€article€18€of€the€Covenant€has€not€been€violated,€since€theÐ l*¼%* Ðhard€hat€regulation€represented€a€reasonable€and€objective€criterion,€in€no€way€incompatibleÐ R+¢&+ Ðwith€article€26€of€the€Covenant.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð4.5€The€State€party€further€considers€that€article€18€does€not€impose€a€duty€of€"reasonableÐ ° Ðaccommodation",€that€the€concept€of€freedom€of€religion€only€comprises€freedom€from€StateÐ –æ Ðinterference€but€no€positive€obligation€for€States€parties€to€provide€special€assistance€to€grantÐ |Ì Ðwaivers€to€members€of€religious€groups€which€would€enable€them€to€practice€their€religion.Ð b² ÐÌ4.6€The€State€party€further€submits€that€if€a€òòprima€facie€óóinfringement€of€article€18,€paragraphÐ . ~ Ð1,€of€the€Covenant€were€to€be€found€in€the€circumstances€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔBhinderÔ_Ô's€case,€suchÐ  d Ðlimitation€was€justified€under€paragraph€3.€The€State€party€argues€that€the€scope€of€thisÐ ú J Ðprovision€comprises€also€the€protection€of€those€persons€subject€to€the€limiting€regulations.Ð à 0 ÐÌòòProceedings€before€the€CommitteeóóÐ ¬ ü  ÐÌ5.1€On€the€basis€of€the€information€before€it,€the€Committee€concluded€that€all€conditionsÐ xÈ  Ðfor€declaring€the€communication€admissible€were€met,€including€the€requirement€ofÐ ^®  Ðexhaustion€of€domestic€remedies€under€article€5,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð D”  ÐÌ5.2€On€25€October€1988,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€declared€the€communicationÐ ` Ðadmissible.Ð öF ÐÌ6.1€The€Committee€notes€that€in€the€case€under€consideration€legislation€which,€on€the€faceÐ Â Ðof€it,€is€neutral€in€that€it€applies€to€all€persons€without€distinction,€is€said€to€operate€in€factÐ ¨ø Ðin€a€way€which€discriminates€against€persons€of€the€Sikh€religion.€The€author€has€claimedÐ ŽÞ Ða€violation€of€article€18€of€the€Covenant.€The€Committee€has€also€examined€the€issue€inÐ tÄ Ðrelation€to€article€26€of€the€Covenant.Ð Zª ÐÌ6.2€Whether€one€approaches€the€issue€from€the€perspective€of€article€18€or€article€26,€in€theÐ &v Ðview€of€the€Committee€the€same€conclusion€must€be€reached.€If€the€requirement€that€a€hardÐ  \ Ðhat€be€worn€is€regarded€as€raising€issues€under€article€18,€then€it€is€a€limitation€that€isÐ òB Ðjustified€by€reference€to€the€grounds€laid€down€in€article€18,€paragraph€3.€If€the€requirementÐ Ø( Ðthat€a€hard€hat€be€worn€is€seen€as€a€discrimination€òòde€facto€óóagainst€persons€of€the€SikhÐ ¾ Ðreligion€under€article€26,€then,€applying€criteria€now€well€established€in€the€jurisprudenceÐ ¤ô Ðof€the€Committee,€the€legislation€requiring€that€workers€in€federal€employment€be€protectedÐ Š Ú Ðfrom€injury€and€electric€shock€by€the€wearing€of€hard€hats€is€to€be€regarded€as€reasonableÐ p!À  Ðand€directed€towards€objective€purposes€that€are€compatible€with€the€Covenant.Ð V"¦! ÐÌ7.€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Ô_Ô0ptionalÔ_ÔÐ "$r# ÐProtocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€is€of€the€view€that€theÐ %X $ Ðfacts€which€have€been€placed€before€it€do€not€disclose€a€violation€of€any€provision€of€theÐ î%>!% ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÓòÓ