Forum

HRM Online forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
HRM CA | 05 Nov 2012, 08:00 AM Agree 0
When a Victoria grocery story fired a woman with depression they violated the human rights code, now they've been fined more than $20,000
  • David Hunt | 05 Nov 2012, 02:19 PM Agree 0
    This is absurd. She could not continue to do the duties she was hired for, disrupted the rest of the employees and now the employer must become a mental health expert and spend more time on this than running their business.
  • Sara | 06 Nov 2012, 08:47 AM Agree 0
    Really David? Is the concept of Duty to Accommodate really new to you?
  • David Hunt | 06 Nov 2012, 12:17 PM Agree 0
    Sara, are you a government employee or a union member?
    This is a quote from the BC Humans Right Commission."undue hardship to the employer or service provider, considering health, safety and cost"

    First of all, the type of business involved would have a lot of interaction between the employees and customers and people who work in these type of jobs should be suited to that.
    This employee created a lot of problems which could damage the business and cost it. There is also the health "well-being of the other employees" These two factors are covered in the quote above and are cause for dismissal. The big problem is they let it go on for far too long.
  • Richard Wood | 06 Nov 2012, 12:48 PM Agree 0
    OK.So she is upsetting the rest of the whole staff and she claims that "her workplace was the source of most of her stress"
    If you start entertaining nonsense like this it means that you literally cannot fire anybody. I am not surprised the tribunal issued a ruling like this.
  • Joan | 07 Nov 2012, 01:33 PM Agree 0
    I am wondering what would have been a reasobable accomodation? If it was the job that was causing her so much stress, why did her Dr. approve her to return to work? Maybe we arent seeing all the details here....
  • Val | 07 Nov 2012, 02:26 PM Agree 0
    I agree in principal to the "Duty to Accommodate", but i think that there could be situations where it is taken to far. The employer must spend way too much time and money on an employee that could be playing the system. In addition, there are physicians that will accommodate their patients stress complaints without question. How can the employer work around that without hiring their own physician - which would then be viewed as biased and then cost the employer more money.
  • Richard Wood | 08 Nov 2012, 12:51 PM Agree 0
    Joan and Val, I agree with your comments, we do not have enough info to make a decision. A recent experience...
    We recently hired a guy from overseas who had good references, all the people experience needed as he had been a high ranking official in the army for many years. He spoke like a gentleman and it all sounded like he had excellent people skills and the experience to go with it. What happened was a disaster, he had issues and would scream and belittle our staff. We have 12 employees and no one wanted to work with him, some refusing point blank. He upset everyone. If we fired him and the tribunal heard this well spoken man they would have believed him hands down. If they (or anyone else) saw the secretly taken video of him verbally abusing one female staff member, they would be very shocked. So we don't really have enough info to know what the truth really is and I don't have confidence in the Tribunal that they can get to the real truth. Small businesses are having a tough enough time as it is without providing mental medicare. I don't think we are being held responsible and accountable enough for our actions, our culture does not embrace that. (imo)
  • Sheldon | 19 Nov 2012, 12:20 PM Agree 0
    I am a person with a disbility....I am deaf...but I can speak...I am responsible to ensure I am qualified and able to do the career I am in. The employer has a duty to do the same, undue hardship to the employer is defined and laid out. I have had people discriminate against me because they are too lazy to educate themselves to fully understand what my disability is all about. I am glad I do not work with David or Richard. Sounds like to me you need to have more life experience. As I have found employers who claim employment equity...only practice it to the convenient disability. Walk a mile in the other persons shoes to see what they see.
Post a reply