Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: Employment application

  1. #1
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    TO
    Posts
    937

    Employment application

    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/sta...h19_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, sex, sexual 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/20...nd-addictions/ and this http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/...accessible.pdf to ensure your hiring practices are in line with the OHRC.

  2. #2
    CGN Regular auracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    federal riding: Winnipeg South Centre
    Posts
    641
    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.
    All items shipped by canada post expedited with tracking and $100 insurance included.
    Insurance above $100 coverage is on the buyer.
    I'll need to see your PAL for firearms,ammo.

  3. #3
    Member RockOutWithMyGlockOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    GTA
    Posts
    37
    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.
    If Jesus had a Glock, he would still be alive today.

  4. #4
    CGN frequent flyer stampede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    1,867
    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."

  5. #5
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    TO
    Posts
    937
    Quote Originally Posted by stampede View Post
    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."
    It already states that an RPAL is required as a condition of employment.

    Quote Originally Posted by RockOutWithMyGlockOut View Post
    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.
    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 by flashman; 08-10-2014 at 06:37 PM.

  6. #6
    CGN Regular gregb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    690
    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.

  7. #7
    CGN frequent flyer greatwhite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    1,083
    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.




    Quote Originally Posted by flashman View Post
    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.
    "This is about unenforceable registration of weapons that violates the rights of people to own firearms."—Premier Ralph Klein (Alberta) Calgary Herald, 1998 October 9 (November 1, 1942 – March 29, 2013) OFAH Member

  8. #8
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer andrew3081's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    4,032
    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.
    What?

  9. #9
    CGN frequent flyer sigrunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern Alberta
    Posts
    1,732
    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.

  10. #10
    CGN Regular Duramax6.6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    402
    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.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •