L10 - Charter of French Language Flashcards
When was the Charter of French done, and for what reasons (3)?
In 1977, as a broad language program (it was not just an individual rights question)
At the time, there was a low birth rate among francophone Québécois, the majority of immigrants were joining English-speaking communities, and english was predominant in the business sector and the workplace
What was the objective of the Charter of French Language (CFL)
To make French the… normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business.
Application (s.135)
Who must apply the CFL?
Everyone
(sole proprietorship, partnerships, and corporations)
True or False
Section 4 states that employees have the right to work in French?
True
RIGHT TO WORK IN FRENCH
According to ss. 41 and 42,
French must be used in
-
-
-
41
- Written communication to staff
- Offers of employment and promotion
42
- Offers of employment published in a newspaper in another language must be simultaneously published in French
RIGHT TO WORK IN FRENCH
According to ss.43 and 49,
French must be used in:
-
-
43
- Collective agreements
49
- Written communications of employee associations to their members
DISMISSAL ON BASIS OF LANGUAGE
Employers are prohibited from dismissing, laying off, demoting or transferring an employee for the sole reason that:
-
-
-
- The employee is only French-speaking
- The employee has insufficient knowledge of another language
- The employee has demanded that a right arising from Ch. VI of the CFL be
respected (protection from reprisals**)
** If an employee insists on exercising their language rights (e.g., working in French), the employer is not allowed to retaliate against them.
Reprisals = représailles
HÉBERT VS SODOMA INC.
A unilingual francophone call centre worker was laid off just as the company was hiring several bilingual call centre workers
An important client had just taken its business away from the call centre, significantly reducing the volume of French calls
There was a simultaneous increase in English calls
The employer resorted to temporary lay offs to unilingual francophone employees
Did the employer respect s. 45 of the CFL?
The fact that the employee is a unilingual francophone, laid off just as bilingual employees were hired, CREATES A PRESUMPTION
The employer MUST SHOW that the fact that the employee is a unilingual
francophone IS NOT the sole reason of the lay-off and that there is another, serious reason for the lay-off.
Here, the reason for the lay-off was in fact the change in the volume of French calls and English calls
Rf. Hébert c Sodema inc, 2010 QCCRT 92
CASE STUDY: BEKTESHI
A daycare worker receives instructions from a parent to speak to his child only in English
The daycare worker raises this with her manager, who instructs her to speak to the children of the group in both languages
There follows heated exchanges between the worker and her manager about the use of English in activities, following which the daycare worker is fired
Did the employer respect s. 45 of the CFL?
The CFL does not cover all situations that arise in a workplace
The CFL requires the use of French in specific situations (written communications, offers of employment, etc.)
The use of English and French with children in a daycare program IS NOT a situation captured by ChVI of the CFL
In this case, the employee HAD NOT “demanded that a right arising from Ch. VI of the CFL be respected”
Rf. Bekteshi et Garderie la familleTweety, 2013 QCCRT 147
HIRING ON THE BASIS OF LANGUAGE
What does section 46 of the CFL state, when it comes to recruiting, hiring, transferring, or promoting a person?
An employer is prohibited from requiring the candidates for a position to have knowledge or specific knowledge of another language “unless the nature of the
duties requires such knowledge” (s. 46)
Section 46 requires MORE THAN A MERE advantage to knowing another language:
- the employer must show that knowledge of the other language is important or necessary based on the real needs of the business
CASE STUDY: POULIOT
A building maintenance worker applied for a position in small hotel:
The hotel owners speak Punjabi and English, and the clientèle is 40% English-speaking
During the interview, he is asked whether he speaks English, and he objects to the question
The position is reposted with a requirement to speak English and the candidate made a complaint.
Was s.46 of the CFL respected by the employer?
The MAINTENANCE worker was only occasionally required to communicate with clients
The requirement to speak English was not reasonably necessary for the
position
The complaint was determined to be well-founded, and the employer was ordered to pay $1000 in moral damages and $2000 in punitive damages
ALWAYS CHECK THE NATURE OF THE JOB
CASE STUDY: COSSETTE
Cossette was not hired as a security guard at the Casino de Montréal due to poor English proficiency
The Casino seeks to cater to tourists and to compete with casinos outside
Québec, and 13% of its clientele is English-speaking
Cossette argued that she should not be denied her right to work in French just because the Casino was deliberately choosing to target tourists from outside Québec
Was the linguistic requirement reasonably necessary?
- The tasks of a security agent involve a significant component of communication
with the public - The Casino’s clientele and its marketing objectives can justify the use of
linguistic requirements for its staff - The linguistic requirement was not unreasonable or unjustified
Rf. Cossette c. Société des Casinos du Québec inc., 2008 QCCRT 446
