## Facts

- Karnel Singh Bhinder, a naturalized Canadian citizen and practicing Sikh, wore a turban as part of his religious practice and refused to wear safety headgear at work.
- Bhinder worked for Canadian National Railway Company (CNR), described as a Crown corporation, as a maintenance electrician at the Toronto coach yard.
- Effective December 1, 1978, CNR designated the coach yard a “hard hat area,” requiring all employees to wear safety headgear.
- The requirement was grounded in Canadian labor-safety legislation and regulations mandating reasonable measures to reduce workplace injury risks and requiring workers to take necessary safety precautions.
- Bhinder refused to replace or cover his turban with a hard hat and was terminated for noncompliance.
- After pursuing domestic avenues, Bhinder filed an individual communication against Canada under the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, alleging violations of freedom of religion and equality.

## Issues

1. Whether enforcing a workplace hard-hat requirement that conflicts with a Sikh employee’s turban-wearing violates ICCPR Article 18(1) (freedom to manifest religion).
2. Whether the hard-hat requirement is a permissible limitation on manifestation of religion under ICCPR Article 18(3) as prescribed by law and necessary for public safety/health.
3. Whether a facially neutral safety rule with adverse effects on Sikhs constitutes discrimination contrary to ICCPR Article 26.

## Decision

- The Human Rights Committee found no violation of Article 18.
- The Committee treated the hard-hat rule as an interference with manifestation of religion but held it justified under Article 18(3) because it was prescribed by law and necessary to protect workplace safety.
- The Committee found no violation of Article 26, concluding the rule served an objective, reasonable safety purpose and was applied generally rather than targeting a religious group.
- The Committee adopted its Views on November 9, 1989, after declaring the communication admissible on October 25, 1988.

## Legal Principles

- Manifestation of religion protected by ICCPR Article 18(1) may be limited under Article 18(3) if the limitation is prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, health, or related interests.
- Workplace safety regulations of general application may qualify as “prescribed by law” when grounded in a legislative and regulatory framework and enforced through employer policies implementing those duties.
- A generally applicable rule that has disparate effects on a religious group does not violate ICCPR Article 26 if it is based on reasonable and objective criteria and pursues a legitimate aim.
- The Committee may accept safety-based limitations on religious manifestation in hazardous work settings where the measure is directed to preventing injury and is applied without religious targeting.

## Conclusion

The Committee concluded that Canada did not violate the ICCPR by enforcing a uniformly applied hard-hat requirement in a hazardous workplace, because the restriction on turban-wearing was prescribed by law and necessary for safety under Article 18(3), and its differential impact on Sikhs was objectively justified and therefore not discriminatory under Article 26.


Singh Bhinder v. Canada, Commc’n No. 208/1986, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/37/D/208/1986 (Hum. Rts. Comm. 1989)