Religion causing unfair distribution of workload

[tishimself]

Scenario:

2 SALARIED Support Personnel hired to do the same job. One not religous the other shomer Shabbas. So at Sundown Fri to Sundown Sat one is unavailable to provide the on-call support. If there is a problem over the weekend it is most likely to occur in that time window. Therefore the non religous employee will be stuck with that problem throughout the weekend because once engaged its hard to turn over to someone else. Not to mention all the holidays that the religous employee will observe outside of weekend support. There is also no compensation for salaried employees as this is part of the job responsibility to provide on-call support.

While I can appreciate religion and harbor no ill will to the religous employee for observing his beliefs, there is an unfair amount of work for the non religous employee.

There's a bit more to it than this but this is the general idea. It's a tough situation. Any thoughts?

 

[Welshbird]

That seems to be the case.

I do wonder though.... I would certainly not want to work on a Sunday, and for me that is a religious observance.

But I wouldn't apply for a job that mandated me to work on a Sunday.

Is it me?

Fee

The question should be [red]Is it worth trying to do?[/red] not [blue] Can it be done?[/blue]

 

[KornGeek]

Again, my take on this situation (and from the sounds of things, the only legally protected view) is that the religious employee is not a factor at all. In terms of handling the on-call duties, this person is not available. Thus, this person should be ignored from the discussion.

This leaves the company with the following issue: There is only one employee to handle the on-call duties, and this employee receives an undue amount of calls on weekends.

Should this employee receive additional compensation for these duties? Probably, but you would be hard-pressed to find a company willing to pay extra for work that was already agreed upon as part of the current pay rate.

Can something be worked out where hours spent handling on-call duties result in comp time to be taken at other points in the week? Possibly, but again, the company already has an agreement in place. They are unlikely to be motivated to provide any sort of additional compensation or consideration.

Should another employee (new hire, or current employee) be brought in to share the on-call duties? Definitely. Failure to do this simple action will inevitably result in the on-call employee burning out and/or leaving. This will leave the company with nobody on-call. It is better to find a second person while the first one is still there than to find a replacement when you have nobody to do the job. Even if the on-call person doesn't leave, they might get sick, go on vacation, get hit by a bus, etc.

The religious person, the hours they work, and the amount they get paid are secondary and an unnecessary distraction to this issue. What another employee in my company gets paid is between them and the company. What I get paid is between me and the company. If either of us is unhappy with our current wage, we should address it with management. However, how much the other gets paid is really none of our business.

 

[MeGustaXL]

Slightly parallel to the main thrust;

I used to be in the military. Several places I worked at had Junior ranks rostered to do "Tea Bar Mechanic" - Key Orderly Duty.

The Tea Bar bit involved collecting money from the section troops for tea, coffee, cold drinks, snacks, etc. It also involved making up rolls, e.g. cheese & onion, cheese & tomato, ham, sausage, boiled egg, etc. (This was before Food Hygiene certification, of course!)

Some of the guys belonged to religious groups whose beliefs forbade them touching, eating or handling ham or any pork products. This meant that other people had to be rostered along with the Duty bloke to make sausage or ham rolls and serve them, hand out packets of bacon crisps, etc.

This caused resentment and frustration, leading to low morale and ostrascism of the pork-avoider(s)

What is the TT Group's take on this?

Chris

When his pin is pulled, Mr Grenade is not our friend - USMC Infantry Manual

 

[KenCunningham]

Chris - if it's of any help, I have before me a bag of 'Roast Chicken' crisps (chips in the US I guess) which are apparently 'suitable for vegetarians'. Go figure.

I don't mind people who aren't what they seem. I just wish they'd make their mind up.

 

[Johnthephoneguy]

Why not just give the guy that has to do the extra work a few extra days off if he has a busy weekend?

JohnThePhoneGuy

"If I can't fix it, it's not broke!

 

[jaymaechtlen]

From the ACLJ's website
Title VII: How it Protects Employe
...
"The employer is also required to reasonably accommodate the employee's religious beliefs unless such accommodation would result in undue hardship to the employer.
16 "Accommodation" means that employer neutrality is not enough.
17 In general, an employer is required to accommodate an employee's adherence to the principles of his religion unless such accommodation will actually interfere with the operations of the employer."

Note the "reasonably" and "unless"s in there...
(since the company is hq in Israel, I would betcha it isn't owned by Muslems)

cheers
Jay

 

[johnherman]

Also, religious beliefs are not above the law. For instance, the courts have upheld the need for Muslim women to display their face on Drivers Licenses even though their religion forbids female facial display and graven images (photos).

-------------------------
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was - Steven Wright

 

[aarenot]

There is existing law for religious observance in the work place. It is not likely a company ID requiring picture would recieve the same judgement. The difference is that what you mentioned is not a civil law matter, employment law is.

While religious observance and practice is not above the law, the law does heavily favor the employees right to practice with huge protections. The law is written such that if the employee makes known their religious objections, or practice requirements, the employer must demonstrate they have accomodated them, or prove undue hardship. Undue hardship does not mean expense, but expense which makes the business financially unfeesible in the markerplace, with no other person who can perform the duties required. This includes anyone qualified to do the needed duties, including management, and employees with other job titles, or descriptions from the employee involved.
The law is not a matter of what we think is fair, or equitable, it is however about compliance. This is one case where the burden of proof is on the employer that they have undue hardship.

 

[Welshbird]

I see what you are all saying, I just don't understand why someone who knows they cannot work on a Saturday ends up being employed in a job which requires them to work on a Saturday.

I wouldn't apply for a job that required me to work on a Sunday.

Fee

The question should be [red]Is it worth trying to do?[/red] not [blue] Can it be done?[/blue]

 

[KornGeek]

Fee,

Often times, the requirements for a job evolve over time. The position you apply for, interview for, and accept may not be the job you are doing 6 months later.

 

[aarenot]

I have seen one time an employee was hired, then a month later told he would be on call. He said it was not part of the job offer he accepted, and he was not willing to take the new position which required on call service.

They fired him, he did get his unemployment benefits.

 

[Welshbird]

Oh I appreciate that the job may change over time, and if it does then that is a different issue. I had thought from this thread that two guys were hired to do this same job with full knowledge of the on-call requirements. That just seems almost negligent to me.

Fee

The question should be [red]Is it worth trying to do?[/red] not [blue] Can it be done?[/blue]

 

[aarenot]

I only mentioned the lack of pre-knowledge of the on call duties in some situations because I wonder if this situation followed the same pattern. The way it sounds with company policy, it may have been disclosed, and accomodated prior to the employment for the religious exemption. Often this duty aspect is considered a negative, and glossed over, or is undisclosed until after the hiring.
Personally, I would just not pursue a position for which the offer disclosed required work at times I was unwilling to work.