Employment application

Status
Not open for further replies.
fenceline said:
Calgary for one. Hired as an amputee, not something that happened after.

You haven't heard about it because no one makes a story out of it.
Click to expand...

I am all for it as long as it does not effect his or her abilities to perform his/her duties.
I am sure there are more requirements that could be considered as discriminating against handicap people from ALL job fields.
 
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/fs-fd/fab-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".
 
voncosbies said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RageStation said:
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/fs-fd/fab-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".
Click to expand...


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 ###ual 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:
RageStation said:
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".
Click to expand...

OHRC said:
"2. Employment applications
In the past, employers often screened out applicants with disabilities based on medical information requested on application forms or obtained through pre-employment medical examinations. The OHRC believes that such questions, asked as part of the application screening process, violate subsection 23(2) of the Code.

Any medical assessment to verify or determine an individual's ability to perform the essential duties of a job, should only take place after a conditional offer of employment is made, preferably in writing. This allows an applicant with a disability the right to be considered exclusively on her or his merits during the selection process."

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-employment-related-medical-information
Click to expand...

You were saying?

The OHRC already says in policy that they believe it violates the Code. Seems like a kind of slam dunk to me, but what do I know.
 
fenceline said:
As stated, he had the prosthetic prior to applying. He passed all physical testing. No standard was abbreviated.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, agencies like the police force/army and every other businesses will not accept anyone that can not perform their duties due to a condition.
Just like the position OP is complaining about.
 
Constructive discrimination

11. (1) A right of a person under Part I is infringed where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not discrimination on a prohibited ground but that results in the exclusion, restriction or preference of a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and of whom the person is a member, except where,

(a) the requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances; or

Companies are allowed to discriminate if a factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances,

a bona fide occupational requirement. This means that the rule establishes a requirement that is necessary for proper or efficient performance of a job.

However, if a rule is a legitimate qualification for doing a job - a BFOR - then it will be upheld. For a rule to qualify as a BFOR, it must be:

made honestly, in good faith, and in the sincere belief that it is made in the interests of effectiveness, safety, and productivity
objectively reasonable. In other words, it must have a sensible connection to the ability of an employee to do the job.


Safety being a keyword in there. Businesses are allowed to discriminate in this case since its a safety issue and reasonable for the position. It wouldn't be hard to argue in court that it's reasonable that you wouldn't want someone with mental or physical issues for safety reasons. Physical can be argued if there handicap affects reaction time and or handling of firearms. Mentally, well thats a given.
 
Hey wolfchild, I'm totally relaxed thanks. Just figured I was entitled to my opinion like you and everyone else on here, I like to come on here and read and learn about firearms and what's new in the firearms world not to bicker. I prefer to make friends and didnt intend to be rude to flashman, if it sounded that way. Finally I don't talk tough behind a keyboard like some, I prefer to do that in person like a man. Peace out.
 
All that would be needed is a simple rewording of the question being asked..."Signing below confirms that I am eligible to obtain and maintain in good standing, an RPAL according to the RCMP/FA/CFO" (whoever decides the requirements). A notice that upon a conditional offer being tendered, a mental health evaluation will be required, this would help screen out those in question from applying without violating their rights as it would be their decision to apply and chance it or not. That's why job descriptions ask that you can "stand for long periods at a time", ie: no wheelchairs or "must be able to lift over 50lbs", ie: nobody missing an arm

It's kind of like the AR15 being restricted, while it makes sense that it should be NR, the current law says it is restricted. Ignoring that law and treating it as though it is NR and taking it into the bush will not change the laws, it will only create trouble for those attempting it.

While it may make sense that this question should be a part of the application process for an RO, the law states that it is discriminatory and a violation of basic human rights, therefore it cannot be asked. Ignoring the law and asking it anyway will not create a grey area that an enforcement agent and decide if it makes sense or not...they will have no choice but to start an inquiry, which as already started will cause unnecessary financial fallout to the employer in question and the taxpayer on behalf of the applicant.

Whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant at this point in time, the law has decreed it a violation of human rights and it should be addressed by the company before they find out the hard way
 
This is a business forum for advertising and product inquiry. Issue like this should be sent to the vendor by private message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom