Mind saying which police force? I never seen or heard about it.
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.
Mind saying which police force? I never seen or heard about it.
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.
I have not seen a police officer that is physically or mentally handicapped.
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.
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.
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".
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".
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
As stated, he had the prosthetic prior to applying. He passed all physical testing. No standard was abbreviated.