Lacking Qualification? No Problem...
Federal Court Judge Judith Snider struck a triumphant blow for fairness in defence of human rights. How perfectly progressive. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada is profoundly pleased with the outcome. And of course the individual who appealed to the court to see her side of affairs must be inordinately pleased.
An auditor with the Canada Revenue Agency, Tracey Patterson was ill done by when her applications for two positions were summarily dismissed. That was two potential promotions she lost out on. And it is just not fair. She said. The legal counsel for PIPSC said: "It is an important decision and it's a progressive decision in a social context."
Referring to the fact that Judge Snider ordered the CRA to reconsider Ms. Patterson's two applications for the advertised jobs. For in her great judicial wisdom she rendered inoperative the basic requisite that those applying for those positions must have relevant experience "for a period of time of not less than 24 months within the past five years."
Ms. Patterson was disqualified on the basis of her not being able to meet that minimum requirement for consideration for those two positions. "In my view there is no principled reason why family leave should be any differently treated under the Canadian Human Rights Act than maternity leave", stated Judge Snider.
So then, when we make choices which we know may impact deleteriously on future job prospects, we needn't bother ourselves about consequences, for there will be none. Irrespective of whether an applicant qualifies on the basis of required experience, she/he will be entitled nonetheless if that lack of experience is tied to 'family obligations' of one kind or another.
Ms. Patterson happened to have taken a year of maternity leave in May 2005. And she went on then to extend that to family leave until October 2009, after which she returned to work. She had previously taken maternity and sick leave between June 2003 and October 2004. She applied afterward for two different positions within the CRA in November 2010, was screened out of both.
Her qualifications having been assessed, she was found not have met the experience requirements, which were fairly basic. "Stated differently, she was denied an employment opportunity because she took leave to care for her family", emphasized the judge.
Well, yes, of course she was denied; anyone wishing to qualify for the position had to pass the initial imperative of relevant time-rated experience.
Yet the CRA had a duty, according to the judge, to accommodate the woman whose decision to care for her family led her to be absent from the workplace for a rather considerable period of time. Don't most people weigh options and consequences and make their decisions based on the priorities and values given to both?
Talking about having your cake and eating it too, huh? A classic example of asking for an inch and taking a mile.
An auditor with the Canada Revenue Agency, Tracey Patterson was ill done by when her applications for two positions were summarily dismissed. That was two potential promotions she lost out on. And it is just not fair. She said. The legal counsel for PIPSC said: "It is an important decision and it's a progressive decision in a social context."
Referring to the fact that Judge Snider ordered the CRA to reconsider Ms. Patterson's two applications for the advertised jobs. For in her great judicial wisdom she rendered inoperative the basic requisite that those applying for those positions must have relevant experience "for a period of time of not less than 24 months within the past five years."
Ms. Patterson was disqualified on the basis of her not being able to meet that minimum requirement for consideration for those two positions. "In my view there is no principled reason why family leave should be any differently treated under the Canadian Human Rights Act than maternity leave", stated Judge Snider.
So then, when we make choices which we know may impact deleteriously on future job prospects, we needn't bother ourselves about consequences, for there will be none. Irrespective of whether an applicant qualifies on the basis of required experience, she/he will be entitled nonetheless if that lack of experience is tied to 'family obligations' of one kind or another.
Ms. Patterson happened to have taken a year of maternity leave in May 2005. And she went on then to extend that to family leave until October 2009, after which she returned to work. She had previously taken maternity and sick leave between June 2003 and October 2004. She applied afterward for two different positions within the CRA in November 2010, was screened out of both.
Her qualifications having been assessed, she was found not have met the experience requirements, which were fairly basic. "Stated differently, she was denied an employment opportunity because she took leave to care for her family", emphasized the judge.
Well, yes, of course she was denied; anyone wishing to qualify for the position had to pass the initial imperative of relevant time-rated experience.
Yet the CRA had a duty, according to the judge, to accommodate the woman whose decision to care for her family led her to be absent from the workplace for a rather considerable period of time. Don't most people weigh options and consequences and make their decisions based on the priorities and values given to both?
Talking about having your cake and eating it too, huh? A classic example of asking for an inch and taking a mile.
Labels: Government of Canada, Human Rights, Realities
posted by Pieface | 7:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home