Employment application

Status
Not open for further replies.
flashman

flashman

Regular
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
Location
TO
Hey guys,

Was browsing your website, and stumbled on you employment application - took a quick look at it, and it seems that you guys are opening yourselves up to a bit of liability with it. At the very end it says "Signing below confirms that in the past year I have not been under medical or other treatment in regards to my mental and / or psychological state."

I've spent a good part of my career working in HR, and that section pretty clearly contravenes the Ontario Human Rights Act, which explicitly prohibits discrimination in employment on that basis (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h19_e.htm#BK12). It's odd too, because at the very top of your application it says: "Employment Application. We consider all applications without regard for: Race, colour, creed, ancestry, origin, ###, ###ual orientation, marital status, family status, handicap or other protected status." Disability under the OHRC includes mental disability or disorder.

You may want to have your HR folks have a look at this http://www.ontarioemployerlaw.com/2...on-mental-health-disabilities-and-addictions/ and this http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default...ilities and addictions_ENGLISH_accessible.pdf to ensure your hiring practices are in line with the OHRC.
 
point taken if it wasnt a condition of your PAL as well,which requires you to waive certain rights such as privacy, the right against search and seizure requirement to disclose psychological conditions. not saying youre wrong just wondering if it applies since as we have waived many of our rights and freedoms as a condition of getting a PAL.
 
Maybe its because they dont want people with a history of mental health issues working with guns and the public. I'm a mamber there and i have to say I agree with that policy.
 
Maybe change the wording to something like:

"Obtaining a PAL is a condition of employment. Any condition or circumstances that prevents this will disqualify an applicant."
 
stampede said:
Maybe change the wording to something like:

"Obtaining a PAL is a condition of employment. Any condition or circumstances that prevents this will disqualify an applicant."
Click to expand...

It already states that an RPAL is required as a condition of employment.

RockOutWithMyGlockOut said:
Maybe its because they dont want people with a history of mental health issues working with guns and the public. I'm a mamber there and i have to say I agree with that policy.
Click to expand...

Then I would say that speaks more to your understanding of mental health than it does to anyone's fitness for employment. To be blunt, it doesn't much matter whether you agree or disagree, it's been settled in law already; it's not a matter up for debate or argument. There can of course be circumstances where requirements for employment can otherwise dictate that discrimination is necessary, eg physical and medical fitness requirements for the Canadian Forces and police services, but those exemptions must be specifically allowed and a case made for them. Holding an RPAL is already a condition of employment, and certainly a reasonable (indeed minimum) requirement to be employed around firearms. So if an individual holds a valid RPAL I think it would be a very tough case for Target to make that this requirement was defensible - the CFO and RCMP have already said that individual is suitable to possess and use firearms, and so would meet the conditions and requirements for employment. Outside of meeting those requirements, employers actually have a duty to accommodate disabilities and disorders. Again, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of law.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't really matter if it is law or not. The hiring company can decide who to hire for whatever reason HR can concoct/spin. Even if it came down between two individuals and one had a
history of mental illness and the other on did not, - they could just pick the one that did not and state that he/ she was more qualified for the position. If the other individual
wants to claim they were unfairly treated or there was prejudice based on their mental health history, they can try... Time consuming + costly = probably never going to happen.

*Some* HR departments can be the most corrupt group of individuals around. Suckling the teat of the CEO. Posting ghost jobs they never intend to hire for (Strickly a PR Boost), posting jobs to external public that they already have a person internally hired for (A Government specialty) and of course roles granted on favoritism and nothing to do with academic ability or qualifications.
 
I work with HR people developing process. I would think you realize there are exceptions to rules and in this case you would need to be mentality all there to be working with gun Restricted and Non. Any time a specific license is required you can be excluded if you don't have it. For example a Pest Control company can refuse to hire someone who does not posses all the necessary licenses or a Fishing boat could refuse to hire you if you were always sick on a boat and couldn't handle being out on the water. I'm guessing you have only worked in an office environment.




flashman said:
It already states that an RPAL is required as a condition of employment.



Then I would say that speaks more to your understanding of mental health than it does to anyone's fitness for employment. To be blunt, it doesn't much matter whether you agree or disagree, it's been settled in law already; it's not a matter up for debate or argument. There can of course be circumstances where requirements for employment can otherwise dictate that discrimination is necessary, eg physical and medical fitness requirements for the Canadian Forces and police services, but those exemptions must be specifically allowed and a case made for them. Holding an RPAL is already a condition of employment, and certainly a reasonable (indeed minimum) requirement to be employed around firearms. So if an individual holds a valid RPAL I think it would be a very tough case for Target to make that this requirement was defensible - the CFO and RCMP have already said that individual is suitable to possess and use firearms, and so would meet the conditions and requirements for employment. Outside of meeting those requirements, employers actually have a duty to accommodate disabilities and disorders. Again, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of law.
Click to expand...
 
So your saying if I get declined for a job because of my poor vision, then the company is at fault?
There are tons of requirements for different jobs and I never see anyone make a fuss regarding requirements even though it clearly discrimnate against some people.
 
Bottom line is the company/person hiring can hire who they feel is the best candidate for the job, it's the way it is and the way it always has been. If your point of this thread is to help this company and alert them to possible wording flaws or whatever, cool, but if your saying that a bipolar pyscopath with a personality disorder should handle weapons and ammo and be around people in a potentially tense environment then your common sense is lacking. I have no problem and sympathize with people with disabilities mental or physical but if they shouldn't be in a certain line of work or not capable in that line of work then it's up to the hiring company to weed that out and chose a suitable candidate of their choosing, period.
 
Employers can put whatever they want on an application? Not in Canada according to our laws. But, and the big but is how can they prove whether the person has or had mental illness? Those are all confidential medical records that not even the Feds can ask to see. Did they put that there in case they accidentally hire a psycho? And that person commits murder in the store, they can go to the media and say "not only is that person a psycho, but they lied on our application, so we can't be blamed for this."?

Proving what someone signs is true can be impossible sometimes, and this would be one of those times.
 
sigrunes said:
Bottom line is the company/person hiring can hire who they feel is the best candidate for the job, it's the way it is and the way it always has been. If your point of this thread is to help this company and alert them to possible wording flaws or whatever, cool, but if your saying that a bipolar pyscopath with a personality disorder should handle weapons and ammo and be around people in a potentially tense environment then your common sense is lacking. I have no problem and sympathize with people with disabilities mental or physical but if they shouldn't be in a certain line of work or not capable in that line of work then it's up to the hiring company to weed that out and chose a suitable candidate of their choosing, period.
Click to expand...

[deep sigh] Yeah. That's what he was saying. [rolls eyes] He wasn't simply pointing out that the comment on the application was both needless and possibly violative. There is already a requirement for applicants to have an RPAL, so relax.
 
gregb said:
Doesn't really matter if it is law or not. The hiring company can decide who to hire for whatever reason HR can concoct/spin. Even if it came down between two individuals and one had a
history of mental illness and the other on did not, - they could just pick the one that did not and state that he/ she was more qualified for the position. If the other individual
wants to claim they were unfairly treated or there was prejudice based on their mental health history, they can try... Time consuming + costly = probably never going to happen.
Click to expand...

Oh my, no, that's not correct. It's completely free to make an application to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Legal assistance for applicants is free. Legal costs can't be awarded. In other words, applicants bear no costs, while respondents are wholly responsible to pay their own legal bills, with no prospect of recovery even in cases of dismissal or favourable judgement. As to how often it happens, here's a link to the OHTR decisions from July alone, there's about 200 of them - https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/nav/date/2014_07.html

In the example you construct, that's all it would take - an prospective employee disclosing they do not meet that condition as specified in the application, and subsequently not being selected for the position. Doesn't matter what the grounds are; that wording in the application alone is more than sufficient to substantiate an application to the OHTR that an employer would then have to respond to. This is not cheap, nor quick, nor obviously a problem any business needs.

greatwhite said:
I work with HR people developing process. I would think you realize there are exceptions to rules and in this case you would need to be mentality all there to be working with gun Restricted and Non. Any time a specific license is required you can be excluded if you don't have it. For example a Pest Control company can refuse to hire someone who does not posses all the necessary licenses or a Fishing boat could refuse to hire you if you were always sick on a boat and couldn't handle being out on the water.
Click to expand...

As I said in my post prior, I think there would be a very hard case to make that if an applicant possessed an RPAL that TS could then discriminate on the basis of mental disorder or disability. As in impossible. The examples you cite AREN'T protected grounds as defined in the Ontario Human Rights Act; therefore you can ABSOLUTELY impose conditions like having a certain license or permit or whatever. Disabilities however, ARE protected from discrimination in the OHRA, as is the point of it.

greatwhite said:
I'm guessing you have only worked in an office environment.
Click to expand...

Totally. Except for the 12 years I spent in the combat arms in the Army and those pesky field trips to places like Bosnia and Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
thewolfchild said:
[deep sigh] Yeah. That's what he was saying. [rolls eyes] He wasn't simply pointing out that the comment on the application was both needless and possibly violative. There is already a requirement for applicants to have an RPAL, so relax.
Click to expand...

Lolz... I was trying to avoid being a smartass actually, I couldn't come up with a polite way to point out that psychopathy IS a personality disorder, so saying "a psychopath with a personality disorder" is redundant. Unless you mean a SECOND personality disorder of course. Although, actually, the question of bipolar psychopaths with a possible comorbid personality disorder possessing firearms isn't one for any of us to answer; that's for the CFO to decide after receiving information from that person's physician. That's why they have those questions on the PAL application and renewal forms. That's the process. I'm sure there are in fact a number of people with bipolar disorder who are licensed to own firearms in Canada. And many many more with diagnosed or un diagnosed psychopathic traits.
 
Last edited:
Have you applied to a police force, flight school or military lately? Pretty sure you cant get a job there unless you have 20/20 vision and all psychological conditions met. We have just turned into a bunch of sissies in north America and think everything is personal and unfair.
 
Ginster said:
Have you applied to a police force, flight school or military lately? Pretty sure you cant get a job there unless you have 20/20 vision and all psychological conditions met. We have just turned into a bunch of sissies in north America and think everything is personal and unfair.
Click to expand...

I have not seen a police officer that is physically or mentally handicapped.
 
Ginster said:
Have you applied to a police force, flight school or military lately? Pretty sure you cant get a job there unless you have 20/20 vision and all psychological conditions met. We have just turned into a bunch of sissies in north America and think everything is personal and unfair.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, those careers have specific exemptions for certain types of discrimination. I am an air traffic controller, and the company is exempted to allow them to discriminate on the basis of several physical disabilities (vision, hearing). But they need special exemption to be able to do that.
 
the final say does come down to the CFO of the province. a business can higher whoever they like, but the CFO has to OK them and add them to the business license in the end. thats after a background check, and some other stuff to make sure the "employee" is ok by their standards.

working in the business i can see why that would be on the list. the ready access to firearms and ammunition.
working in a firearms store is very stressful, takes a certain kind of attitude and personality to work in one.
 
Here's how the process would go;
Someone applies
They see the part about metal illness
They file a complaint with human rights
Human rights sees the basic requirements to accept the claim
The company now has to hire a lawyer to counter the claim
The 2 parties will be sent to mediation were the company will pay out a couple grand (if they're smart)
With settlement, legal fees and time loss.... Most companies will loose about $10k

This isn't up for debate, this is how the law is set up to work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom