HRD Canada forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
HRM CA | 12 May 2014, 10:55 AM Agree 0
A recent human rights tribunal decision is a lesson to HR to ensure consultants and third parties follow their processes to avoid liability.
  • Andrew J. Yu | 12 May 2014, 02:48 PM Agree 0
    A reminder that employers can be held liable for damages and/or unprofessional conduct committed by consultants. In Canada, it is strongly advised that employers look for a CHRP or SHRP designation in a human resources consultant, in addition to adequate professional liability insurance.
  • David | 12 May 2014, 03:05 PM Agree 0
    @Andrew J. Yu...

    I would argue in Canada it is strongly advised that employers look towards an experienced, reputable firm for any 3rd party assistance.

    A CHRP/SHRP isn't required or a sure way to avoid potential problems...please dont advertise on here, per the criteria below
  • Yvonne | 12 May 2014, 05:28 PM Agree 0
    @David: since CHRP is the nationally recognized HR professional designation in Canada, it is the best assurance to managers and executives that the consultant they are hiring conducts the work in accordance with professional standards. In the absence of such a designation, it is “let the buyer beware”.

    Your allegation that Mr. Yu is advertising through his comment is unsubstantiated and unfair. We don’t even know if Mr. Yu is a HR consultant or not. Perhaps he is a manager who was previously burned by a HR consultant with no designation. I believe you owe Mr. Yu an apology.
  • Danny G | 12 May 2014, 10:17 PM Agree 0
    @David - suggesting that employers hire a consultant with a CHRP / SHRP designation is just that - a suggestion. Its no different than suggesting you should hire a CA to do your accounting. I don't see how that is advertising; although I don't disagree that there are plenty of well qualified consultants who don't have either of those designations...
  • Mike | 13 May 2014, 08:20 AM Agree 0
    It is unfortunate but employers discriminate against older workers all the time. The 3rd party agencies are given instructions on what to look for by the client. This has been going on for years.
  • sarah gayer | 13 May 2014, 10:28 AM Agree 0
    As a consultant, I have to hold myself to a higher standard as my reputation depends on it. Should my client ask me to do something that I think is not appropriate I will walk away. Employers need to understand that the third party is out there representing them for example in the job search and is therefore an extension of that employer. How they conduct themselves is a reflection on the employer. it is easy to use a third party to do those things that you would say you never would do. When hiring a consultant or any third party please do your due diligence. Ensure they are qualified, ask them for references, ask if they do have liability insurance, just in case. Do not go with someone who is the least expensive remember you get what you pay for.
  • Corette Miller | 14 May 2014, 02:57 PM Agree 0
    This situation re-enforces the need for experienced HR to ensure the employer hires smart...know what you want and be very clear at the beginning of the job search...I'm confused if the 3rd party agent was an "headhunter" or a Human Resourcees consultant...two different fields.
  • Willo | 16 May 2014, 03:03 PM Agree 0
    I have to agree with Mike. I believe age discrimination is rampant. It is corporate Canada's dirty little secret....and HR is in on it.
    North Americans don't value wisdom and experience. 's shameful and a tremendous waste. I cannot understand what we are afraid of.
  • sarah gayer | 16 May 2014, 03:39 PM Agree 0
    The headhunter in the industry is considered to be human resources/HR or an extension of HR. HR will do what the management wants them to do unfortunately. These people will one day be older and not much wiser.
Post a reply