The Lynch List, 08-Nov-2010

Your update on Canada’s HRCs coming to you three times a week:

First: The hammer falls on Air Canada for having a policy requiring its pilots to retire at age 60. Some interesting twists in the ruling:

– The CHRT says it does not have the power to rescind the retirement policy – but it does have the power to severely punish Air Canada whenever it applies their policy. Huh?

– The complainants, after undergoing retraining, will jump the queue to operate the equipment that they are “entitled to”.

– The specious legal reasoning that I call the “McDonald’s Argument” strikes again – if the respondent is a massive company then huge payouts in litigation are justified solely because the respondent won’t even notice that the money is gone. Look in section 164:

Further, in limiting retroactive relief, Hyslop requires that fairness to the litigants be considered. In my opinion, the balance in terms of fairness, favors the complainants. The complainants are two in number. There is no evidence that their reinstatement at the seniority numbers they claim would have any negative effect on Air Canada’s operations.

Not to mention the amusing statement that “fairness favors the complainants.”

Second: The unintended (hopefully) consequence of outlawing drug and alcohol testing: “Give us your drunk, your intoxicated, and your addicted! We need them to run a mine!

There’s been some confusion about whether anyone who drinks or uses drugs should think of applying for jobs at Hope Bay.

But pre-job drug and alcohol testing is not part of the Newmont hiring process, Hanks said.

And it’s “not the plan” to introduce any drug or alcohol testing at Newmont’s operations in Canada, he said.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission’s policy on alcohol and drug testing says pre-employment drug or alcohol testing, random drug testing, and random alcohol testing of employees who are in safety-sensitive positions are not acceptable.


4 Responses to The Lynch List, 08-Nov-2010

  1. Kevin says:

    Drug & alcohol testing hasn’t been outlawed. The policy referred to (which some would argue is an overstatement of the law) clearly allows testing of employees in safety sensitive positions–exactly the opposite of what the article claims. The article also refers to a Supreme Court of Canada decision which is, to the best of my knowledge, non-existent.

  2. Kevin:

    Iiiiiiinteresting. I’ll try to contact them to see what Supreme Court case they’re citing.

    I know that the HRCs have allowed some drug&alcohol testing under very strict guidelines, but I figured (and I’m right) that even the threat of further HR complaints is going to make employers very, very hesitant to do any testing at all. Unintended consequences…

  3. […] The Lynch List, 10-Nov-2010; Campaign Launched to Counter Human Rights Commissions; The Lynch List, 08-Nov-2010 …. […]

  4. […] The Lynch List, 10-Nov-2010; Campaign Launched to Counter Human Rights Commissions; The Lynch List, 08-Nov-2010 …. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: