CQB, 3 Gun, ISSAC and Service Rifle Shooter.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ - 1* - SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM - HAN SHOT FIRST - YOUR FREEDOM IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY
I logged in to read about guns and fell into this. FML
There's Mil-spec, and then there's Gunnutz-spec.
One is stringent, the other contains nuts.
flashman you're digging for an argument. If you feel your position is strong enough, go to the Board and launch that free case.
Problem is that you'll find you're wrong.
Requirements of a Restricted PAL include discrimination against many people for many different reasons.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/f...ab-eaf-eng.htm
As per the requirements of a Canada BFL, all employees must have the appropriate license issued to them before they can undertake specific duties in the firearm retail world.
Working HR you must also realize that job descriptions themselves are footnotes to discrimination of applicants. You don't hire a painter to frame a house. You don't hire a paraplegic that can't use the pedals to operate a forklift. You don't hire a quadriplegic to clean shark tanks.
There are often fine lines between discrimination and legal requirement. As all above examples are goofy or extreme, they are legal requirements as you do not as an employer hire someone who may be at risk of injury or worse for the job. If they are not physically or mentally fit to be working, you as an employer are obligated to pull them off that job.
At best you would find at the end of your little case on the Tax Payers dime, the Provincial Court would request that Full Service Firearms and Bullet Supplies simply clarify that this information is required as part of the RPAL application.
But until you apply to FSFBS and find that they are taking this information for personal gain/reasons other than the application of RPAL, you've no argument of "wrong doing".
And we have a winner... This is EXACTLY what the process will look like. In Ontario though, the costs to settle at mediation average $20k; go to a hearing (and guess what - the APPLICANT can decide to waive mediation and proceed to the hearing stage) and the sky is the limit. Six figures wouldn't be unusual.
Honestly, I could forward that application to any one of a half dozen or so buddies of mine from my Army days, and there could be an application in to the HRTO by the close of business today. The position being hired for is a range officer; well all these guys would be more than qualified - they spent their careers in leadership positions running ranges in the military, ranges that are a wee bit more challenging to safely conduct that static indoor ones. They all have a proven track record of doing exactly what the position requires, and they all have their RPALS. They also happen to suffer from PTSD or other mental health issues as a result of their service in BiH, Afghanistan, Rwanda, and a few other places. Some are still serving, some left the military and are on various police forces, and some are in various levels of civilian employment or unemployment. If any of them wanted to make some easy money, filing a quick application and settling at mediation would be a good way to do it.
The second issue is to consider how this would play out in the press - I don't know if anyone here follows the news, but veteran's issues and especially veteran's mental health issues are kind of a hot button topic at the moment. This would not, as the saying goes, pass the Globe and Mail test. As in: any sane business owner should be kept awake at night worrying about the possibility of reading a story in the Globe about the Canadian Forces veteran who was discriminated against in hiring as a result of a service related disability.
Worth it to have a question like that in the application? I don't believe so. Hence my attempt to assist TS by suggesting they remove that question from the employment app before the above mentioned scenario happens.
None of this is correct. At all. Seriously, it's all completely wrong. From your understanding of waiving rights, to who you think hears human rights complaints, to what you think qualifies as discrimination, to what you think an employer's obligations are to handicapped employees, to personal gain being a required element of discrimination. It'a all completely, totally and unequivocally incorrect.
You should have a read of the OHRA, that'll clarify what are and aren't protected grounds for discrimination. Only a few of the examples you cite are protected grounds; being a painter is not a recognized sexual orientation, race, disability, etc etc. Therefore it is absolutely OK to discriminate in hiring based on those grounds. As has been said over and over, if the applicant holds an RPAL, it'd be impossible to make the case that discriminating on the basis of disability is a necessary business requirement; they already hold the license or qualification required for the job. Discrimination beyond that is EXACTLY the sort of thing the OHTR was set up for.
I'm also pretty darn sure that TS wouldn't appreciate you daring people to go file an application; I don't qualify, but I know plenty of folks who do. Rather than doing precisely that, I thought it may be better for the business to educated and have them self correct it, as opposed to an order from the OHTR. Seriously, you honestly don't know what you're talking about, no big deal, none of us can be experts in all fields - but were someone to take your dare, it'd be a very expensive proposition for TS.
Last edited by flashman; 08-11-2014 at 12:22 PM.